Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The prayer in this petition is to release the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 42 dated 16.6.2002 under sections 307/326/325/323/324/34 IPC, registered at PS Khemkaran, District Amritsar. 2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, a dispute arose between the complainant party and accused party over the canal water course. It is alleged that the petitioner and his associates wanted to close the passage of the water course and when objected to the complainant party was attacked by them. As per the allegations the petitioner who was armed with kirpan, gave kirpan blow to the complainant Balwinder Singh, who in order to defend himself, raised his hand and the kirpan blow hit on the palm of his right hand. The second kirpan blow given by the petitioner also landed on the little finger of the right hand of the complainant. 3. It is not disputed that as per the nature of injuries referred to above, Section 307 IPC has been attracted. 4. The petitioner appears to have been employed in Central Industrial Security Force and according to the learned counsel his whereabouts being not known to the police, he was declared a P.O. The petitioner, however, was arrested on 1.2.2005 when he allegedly came on leave. 5. In support of the prayer made in this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that (i) the petitioner is in custody from the last more than 9 months; (ii) investigation is complete, challan has also been presented and some of the prosecution witnesses have also been examined, however; (iii) prosecution intends to examine at least 10 more witnesses, therefore, conclusion of trial will take a considerably long time; (iv) the petitioners co-accused have already been released on bail; (v) having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out; (vi) the petitioner undertakes not to tamper with and/or influence the prosecution witnesses. 6. Learned State counsel, however, has opposed the prayer in this petition on the ground that the petitioner was declared a P.O., therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 7. 6. Learned State counsel, however, has opposed the prayer in this petition on the ground that the petitioner was declared a P.O., therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 9 months and conclusion of trial will take a considerably long time and no purpose will be achieved by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody, this petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of trial court. 8. It is, however, made clear that having regard to the past conduct of the petitioner namely that he was declared P.O., trial court will make it sure that the petitioner is released on bail on furnishing adequate bail bonds and at least two sureties of the like amount apart from other rigorous conditions so that the possibility of his absconding from the trial is ruled out. 9. Disposed of.