JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.:- This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos.38168-M and 38928-M of 2007 as in both these petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek their release on regular bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 105 dated 10th June, 2007, under Sections 307, 452, 447, 379, 427, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana. 2. The FIR has been registered on a complaint made by Harchand Singh adopted son of Rur Singh, resident of village Daad, Tehsil & District Ludhiana and reads as under:­ “It is submitted that I, Harchand Singh adopted son of Rur Singh am a resident of village Daad, Tehsil & District Ludhiana and am owner of land measuring 3 acres situated at village Daad and am in possession of aforesaid 3 acres of land for the last 50 years. Kartar Singh son of Tela Singh, Jat by Caste, resident of the village is in the habit of taking forcible possession of the lands of the other persons and shamlat land. He had an eye on my said land and wanted to grab that land for a number of years, due to which we are not on good terms for a long period of time. A number of quarrels have taken place and a number of cases are pending in the Courts between us. He had been threatening us to give our land to him otherwise he would get us ousted from the village one day and would make it difficult for us to survive but we do not want to give our land to him. On 3.12.2005, Kartar Singh married his grand daughter with Vikramjit Singh Chahal son of Bharat Inder Singh, Media Advisor to the former Chief Minister with great pomp and show. Captain Amarinder Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab, Ministers and Senior Police Officers and renowned industrialists had attended the same as part of the marriage procession (barat). After this marriage this person became more influential. This frightened us a lot; and we being concerned about our land started keeping vigil over it. Captain Amarinder Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab, Ministers and Senior Police Officers and renowned industrialists had attended the same as part of the marriage procession (barat). After this marriage this person became more influential. This frightened us a lot; and we being concerned about our land started keeping vigil over it. On 23.10.2006, Kartar Singh aforesaid, his son Jagdish Pal, Harbhajan Singh, Jaswinder Pal Singh, his grand son Harjinder Singh, Iqbal Singh and Bharat Inder Singh Chahal, along with official gunmen and 50-60 persons armed with weapons in 10-12 official and private vehicles, five tractors and 2 JBC machines entered my land. No sooner did they come there, they started firing on us indiscriminately. I and my grand son Ranjit Singh saved our lives with great difficulty by fleeing from the spot. Had we not fled away from the spot they would have killed us. This occurrence had taken place during day time. A number of persons witnessed the occurrence as mute spectators. At that time, some co-villagers were also present there. Sardar Bikkar Singh son of Kartar Singh was also present at the spot, who witnessed the entire occurrence. I and my grandson went to P. S. Sadar and met the Inspector and narrated the entire occurrence to him. He told us that Mr. Chahal was present there (in Ludhiana) and forbade us from raising any hue and cry or from visiting there again and threatened us that a false case would be registered against us, if we tried to do so. He advised us to pass our time by being meek. Out of fear, we did not go to our village and spent the night at village Khatrar at the place of our relatives and told them the entire episode. They told us to meet senior Police Officers in the morning and no body could do such high, handedness. In the morning, we saw that 100­150 persons were present around our land. Out of them 50-60 persons were armed with weapons. Some of them were in police , uniform. Bharat Inder Singh Chahal and Kartar Singh were instructing 3 persons, who appeared to be Government Engineers, as to how boundary wall of the said land was to be erected. Those persons were getting the job executed through masons and the labourers accordingly. Out of them 50-60 persons were armed with weapons. Some of them were in police , uniform. Bharat Inder Singh Chahal and Kartar Singh were instructing 3 persons, who appeared to be Government Engineers, as to how boundary wall of the said land was to be erected. Those persons were getting the job executed through masons and the labourers accordingly. Kartar Singh and Bharat Inder ‘ Singh Chahal along with other persons got razed our Kotha (room) and took away the engine, water pump etc. lying therein. Then we again went to the SSP, Ludhiana who said that respected (Bapu) Shri Kartar Singh is not a person of that type and expressed his inability to get conducted any inquiry. We out of fear did nothing and reconciled to our fate. On 3.6.2007, Kartar Singh along with his sons and goons in their vehicles with red beacons atop had been roaming there and had been raising lalkaras,­ They appeared to be under influence of liquor. We got frightened. On that day, I received a telephone call on my telephone no. 2806668, which was attended by my grandson Ranjit Singh. My grandson told me that the person on the line appeared to be drunk and voices of a number of other persons could also be heard. Said person identified himself to be Chahal and by hurling abuses was saying that we were still in the village and threatened us to leave the village otherwise he would get us all killed. The aforesaid persons having grabbed the possession of my land have got erected the boundary wall thereof and have tried to kill us. Now again they are extending threats to kill us. We apprehend danger to our lives and property at their hands. A stern action may be taken against them. I am complainant”. 3. The aforesaid persons having grabbed the possession of my land have got erected the boundary wall thereof and have tried to kill us. Now again they are extending threats to kill us. We apprehend danger to our lives and property at their hands. A stern action may be taken against them. I am complainant”. 3. As may be noticed from the contents of the FIR, it is alleged that (a) the complainant is owner in possession of a piece of land measuring three acres upon which Kartar Singh son of Teja Singh - co-accused and father of the petitioners in the second petition had an eye; (b) Kartar Singh got his grand-daughter married to Vikramjit Singh Chahal son of Bharat Inder Singh Chahal, the Media Advisor to the then Chief Minister, Punjab and the said marriage was attended by the then Chief Minister, Punjab himself with his ministerial entourage in tow; (c) Kartar Singh due to his new found proximity to the seat of power became more powerful and taking undue advantage thereof, he along with his sons, grand sons and Bharat Inder Singh Chahal, escorted by his official gunmen, descended on the spot on 23rd October, 2006 with a battery of 50-60 armed personnel in 10-15 official vehicles and tractors etc. and forcibly entered the complainant’s land; (d) no sooner did they enter the land than they started firing indiscriminately on the complainant and his grand sons, who could save themselves only by fleeing from the spot; (e) the occurrence took place in broad day-light and was witnessed by a number of persons including one Bikkar Singh son of Kartar Singh; (f) the complainant approached the SHO of the Police Station concerned who forbade him from raising any hue and cry and reminded him of the high position held by Bharat Inder Singh Chahal. The Senior Superintendent of Police also refused to listen to the complainant; (g) on the very next day, B.I.S.Chahal and Kartar Singh, along with a mob of 100-150 persons including 50-60 armed persons, were spotted at the said land instructing to erect the boundary wall; (h) the complainant reconciled to his fate and let them had their way, yet on 3rd June, 2007 Kartar Singh and his sons along with their goons were found zooming past the land in their beacon flashing vehicles and threatened them further; (i) the complainant’s grandson (Ranjit Singh) allegedly received a telephonic call and the voice on the other end introduced itself as Chahal and while firing a volley of choicest abuses, it asked as to how the complainant and his family still dared staying in the village and also threatened them to leave the village or he would get them all killed. 4. The police is stated to have held an inquiry and “the contents of the complaint” having been found to be correct, the subject FIR was registered and the petitioners as well as their other co-accused were arrested, out of whom, Kartar Singh and Harjinder Singh have since been released on bail by the learned trial Court. 5. While Criminal Misc. No. 38168-M of 2007 ( here-in-after referred to as “first petition”) has been filed by one of the accused, namely, Bharat Inder Singh Chahal, Criminal Misc. No.38928-M of 2007 (here-in-after referred to as “second petition”) is on behalf of Jagdish Pal Singh, Jaswinder Pal Singh and Harbhajan Singh sons of Kartar Singh, who are also named in the afore-stated FIR. Criminal Misc. No.38168-M of 2007. 6. The facts in Bharat Inder Singh Chahal’s case, as averred by him in the petition may briefly be stated as follows:­ (a) the petitioner served in the Public Relations Department, Government of Punjab till he sought premature retirement in February, 2002 while working as a Joint Director. He was thereafter appointed as Media Advisor by the then Chief Minister, Punjab - Captain Amarinder Singh and was bestowed the rank of a Minister. He held the said post till January, 2007; (b) it is alleged that after the Assembly Elections held in February, 2007, a new Government headed by S. Parkash Singh Badal as its Chief Minister, has assumed power on March 3, 2007. He held the said post till January, 2007; (b) it is alleged that after the Assembly Elections held in February, 2007, a new Government headed by S. Parkash Singh Badal as its Chief Minister, has assumed power on March 3, 2007. The present Chief Minister, his son and other important functionaries of the present Government are inimically disposed towards the petitioner; (c) the petitioner is also sought to be victimized as the present Chief Minister, Punjab, blames him for getting FIR No. 15 dated 24th June, 2003 registered against him (the present Chief Minister) and his family members. The said FIR had been registered on a complaint made by one of the relatives of the petitioner, namely, Balwant Singh. From the various news items published in different newspapers, the petitioner has reasonable apprehension in mind that, the present State Government is all set to victimize and humiliate him by implicating in one criminal case or the other; (d) that soon after the present Government came into power, the close associates of the petitioner were picked up and kept in illegal custody and the petitioner’s house has also been raided without any rhyme or reason. The petitioner’s close relatives including the ones who are co-accused in the, present case have also not been spared and are being entangled in one case or the other; (e) the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, registered FIR NO.5 dated. 23rd March, 2007, under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B I PC and Sections 7/13 (1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana known as “Ludhiana City Centre Scam”, against the former Chief Minister ,and various other persons. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of one Jitender Singh was recorded on 9th May, 2007 and relying upon the same, the petitioner was also sought to be implicated in the said case; (f) apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. NO.33035-M of 2007 on 30th May, 2007 and was granted interim protection against arrest for a day. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. NO.33035-M of 2007 on 30th May, 2007 and was granted interim protection against arrest for a day. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. NO.35545-M of 2007, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a general direction that in case any FIR is registered against him, he may be given three weeks’ notice before being arrested; an affidavit was filed by the Inspector General of Police-cum-Director General, Vigilance, Punjab in the said case and upon consideration thereof, this Court, vide order dated 31st May, 2007, stayed arrest of the petitioner subject to his making himself available for interrogation by the Vigilance Bureau as and when required and also subject to compliance of some other conditions; (g) On 8th June, 2007, the petitioner received a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. from the Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana to join the investigation on 10th June, 2007 in the afore-stated case. The petitioner went to Ludhiana on 10th June, 2007 at about 3 PM to join in the investigation by the Vigilance Bureau and was interrogated till 5.30 PM. During the course of interrogation only that he was arrested by the Punjab Police in the present case, i.e., FIR No.105 dated 10th June, 2007, reproduced above. Criminal Misc. No. 38928-M of 2007 :­ 7. In Jagdishpal Singh and others’ case, the daughter of petitioner No.1, namely, Kanwaljit Kaur is stated to have been married to son of Bharat Inder Singh Chahal on 3rd December, 2005. Petitioners NO.2 and 3 are brothers of petitioner NO.1. Their father and son of one of the petitioners are also named in the present FIR. However, two of them have since been released on regular bail by the learned trial Court. While pleading innocence, the petitioners have alleged that they have been falsely implicated by the present State Government in order to grind their axe against the petitioners’ close relative, namely, Bharat Inder Singh Chahal. 8. The possessory rights over a piece of land which is stated to be located somewhere near or within the City limits of Ludhiana and is valued at crores, appears to be the root cause of the incident. The petitioners allege that the complainant (Harchand Singh) was owner in possession of the land measuring 3645 sq. yards falling in shamlat Patti, Khewat NO.724, Khatauni No. 901, Khasra/Killa NO.1677/2/6 measuring 1B-4B-6B. It is alleged that the complainant in collusion with the Patwari, got the area changed to 6B-4B-6B. The petitioners allege that the complainant (Harchand Singh) was owner in possession of the land measuring 3645 sq. yards falling in shamlat Patti, Khewat NO.724, Khatauni No. 901, Khasra/Killa NO.1677/2/6 measuring 1B-4B-6B. It is alleged that the complainant in collusion with the Patwari, got the area changed to 6B-4B-6B. On the basis of the changed revenue record, the complainant is alleged to have executed two sale deeds dated 9th and 10th November, 1994 respectively in favour of his own son Gurmail Singh. 9. Petitioner NO.1 along with his brother-Dalvinder Singh (since deceased) filed a civil suit in a representative capacity challenging the afore-stated changed entries in the revenue record and also sought a declaration that the sale deeds executed by the complainant in favour of his son - Gurmail Singh are illegal, null and void as well as fraudulent. The said civil suit was decreed in favour of petitioner NO.1 and his brother vide judgment and decree dated 27th April, 2006 (Annexure P-4 with the second petition), which is now under challenge in an appeal by the complainant. 10. The civil dispute between the parties, however, took an ugly turn when FIR No. 227 dated 6th October, 1997, under Sections 307/148/149 IPC and 25 Arms Act was registered against Kartar Singh and his four sons (including the petitioners in second petition) as well as one Iqbal Singh @ Ghughi on a complaint made by Gurmail Singh son of the present complainant. 11. Meanwhile, Dalwinder Singh, one of the brothers of the petitioners in the second petition was found murdered and two sons of the present complainant, namely, Satwant Singh and Gurmail Singh along with three others were named as accused in FIR No. 68 dated 1st March, 1998, under Sections 148/149/302/120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana. While one of the complainant’s son Satwant Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 5th September, 2001 (Annexure P-5), his other son, Gurmail Singh, who absconded but was arrested later on, too has been convicted and ‘sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by a later judgment dated 17th May, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (Annexure P-6). COUNTER ALLEGA TIONS: 12. COUNTER ALLEGA TIONS: 12. The petitioners in the second petition or their other family members too do not appear to be lagging behind and against them also some Criminal Cases were reportedly registered from time to time and in most of these cases the allegations pertained to taking forcible possession of the agricultural lands etc. The details of these cases are as follows:­ “1. FIR. No. 21 dated 14.1.1998, under Sections 452,324,323,148,149 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana. 2. FIR No. 15 dated 12.1.2002, under Sections 447, 427, 511, 506, 336, 431, 148, 149 IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana. 3. FIR No. 229 dated 25.6.2002, under Sections 447, 448, 511, 427, 506, 379, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. 4. FIR No. 237 dated 29.6.2002, under Sections 454, 380, 427, 447, 149 IPC, Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. 5. FIR No. 238 dated 29.6.2002, under Sections 452, 447, 448, 379, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana. 13. It, however, appears that in most of these cases un­traced reports were filed on the basis of “compromise” during the period when the B.I.S. Chahal was at the helm of affairs in the State of Punjab. 14. Relying upon the certified copies of certain documents, it is further pointed out that the father of the petitioners in the second petition, namely, Kartar Singh, got himself declared as a Freedom Fighter on the basis of forged and bogus documents and got a Petrol Pump allotted. However, when a complaint was made, he fabricated the record to show that he had been no more alive. The said declaration was made on the basis of a statement made by none else than his own son. It is claimed that the petitioners in the second petition and their families have amassed wealth worth crores of rupees, including agricultural lands, during the period when their relative, BIS Chahal was in power. 15. Reference has also been made to an order dated 31st January, 2002 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.4522-M of 2002 filed by the grandson of the present complainant against the petitioners in the second petition and their father and other family members seeking protection of his life and liberty. 15. Reference has also been made to an order dated 31st January, 2002 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.4522-M of 2002 filed by the grandson of the present complainant against the petitioners in the second petition and their father and other family members seeking protection of his life and liberty. This Court vide the aforesaid order directed the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) to provide protection to the said petitioner and also to execute the non-bailable warrants which had been issued against the accused persons. 16. In sum and substance, it appears that both the parties unhesitatingly take law in their hands and firmly believe in exhibiting their muscle power. It also appears that both of them have set their vulture’s eyes over the disputed land which is, prima facie, shamlat land and stands vested in the Gram Panchayat. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the records. 18. It also appears that both of them have set their vulture’s eyes over the disputed land which is, prima facie, shamlat land and stands vested in the Gram Panchayat. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the records. 18. Shri R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Counsel appearing in the first petition, inter-alia, contends that even as per the allegations contained in the FIR (i) though gun shots were fired, however, no one was injured; (ii) the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 23rd October, 2006 whereas the FIR was got registered after a lapse of seven months; (iii) it is claimed by the police that an inquiry was conducted into the complaint but no inquiry report has ever seen the light of the day; (iv) assuming that the then SHO refused to entertain the complaint made by the complainant, nothing prevented the latter from resorting to his right under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and submit a written complaint; (v) the petitioner has been falsely implicated out of personal vendetta and it is a case of sheer victimization as no such occurrence ever took place; (vi) the complainant has concealed material facts including that the subject land is a shamlat/Bachat land and that the Civil Court has already passed a decree against him; (vii) the family of the petitioners in the second petition has already fallen a victim to the complainant party as Kartar Singh’s son (Dalvinder Singh) was murdered by the farmer’s two sons, namely, Satwant Singh and Gurmail Singh; (viii) the FIR in question has been falsely registered in order to frustrate the interim bail order dated 31st May, 2007 staying the petitioner’s arrest by the Vigilance Bureau; (ix) but for the petitioner none of the other 50-60 co-accused, who were stated to be present and armed with deadly weapons, have been tracked down or arrested; (x) it is not a mere coincidence that the petitioner was summoned by the Vigilance Bureau at Ludhiana to join in investigation in terms of the interim bail granted by this Court and was arrested in the present case; (xi) the petitioner has already been interrogated; (xii) the alleged weapons taken into possession by the police are all licensed ones; (xiii) no other recovery is to be effected from the petitioner; (xiv) the investigation is over and challan has also been presented; (xv) since the petitioner has been arrested in a totally false and fabricated case, it amounts to deprivation of his right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 19. Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the second petition, additionally contended that since no one was injured in the alleged occurrence, the case at the best falls within Part-I of Section 307 IPC for which the maximum sentence is of ten years;(ii) the story regarding firing by 50-60 persons has been fabricated for the reason that except Section 307 IPC, the other offences are triable by a Magistrate; (iii) Section 452 IPC has already been deleted by the investigating agency while presenting the challan; (iv) the subsequent occurrence dated 3rd June, 2007 has been concocted to cover up the inordinate delay in registration of the FIR. 20. On the other hand, Ms. Rita Kohli, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, stoutly opposes the prayer made in these petitions and argued with full vehemence that (i) a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners; (ii) there is no inordinate delay in registration of the FIR as second part of the occurrence took place on 3rd June, 2007 only; (iii) the complainant is an old crippled person and can not be expected to report the matter then and there; (iv) the petitioners in the second petition are habitual land grabbers; (v) the involvement of the petitioner in the first petition, namely, B.I.S. Chahal, who enjoyed a Minister’s status at the relevant time but failed to act as a role model for the society, should be viewed seriously; (vi) the petitioner - B.I.S Chahal is a very influential person who is capable of tampering with the prosecution evidence and can also exert influence upon its witnesses; (vii) the fact that deadly weapons have been recovered from the petitioners also strengthens the gravity of accusations and (ix) having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Gajanand Aggarwal v. State of Orissa & Anr, [2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1540] : 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 672; (ii) State of UP v. Amarmani Tripathi, 2005(8) SCC, 21 and (iii) Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI, 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.), 166, the petitioners should not be released on bail, though a direction to expedite the trial can be issued by this Court. 21. Learned State Counsel has been supported by Mr. 21. Learned State Counsel has been supported by Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the complainant, who, has highlighted the fact that the petitioners in the second petition and their families are the persons having a criminal bent of mind, therefore, no witness shall be able to depose fearlessly if they are released on bail. 22. It is well settled that while granting or declining bail, the Court should not comment upon the evidentiary value of the material on record. Only the broad features of the case are to be noted. Elaborate analysis of the evidence by the Court would undoubtedly cause prejudice to either of the parties. The Court is required to satisfy itself as to whether or not a prima facie case is made out and even while considering the same, exhaustive exploration of the merits is to be avoided. 23. It is equally well settled that while granting or refusing bail, the Court is required to consider the following features, amongst others: (i) nature and gravity of the charges an severity of punishment in case of conviction; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant; (iii) danger of the accused, absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (iv) character, behaviour, means and position of the accused; (v) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vi) the conditions laid down under Section 437 (1)(i) Cr.P.C are sina-qua-non while granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. also; 24. Similarly, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav’s case (supra), the position which a person holds or was held by him in the past is wholly irrelevant as “the law is no respecter of the persons and the same is equal for everyone”; The golden principle, however, which has been consistently laid down is that grant of bail is dependent upon the facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and the facts, however, do always vary from case to case. 25. Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the afore-stated principles, it may be noticed that the alleged occurrence attracting Section 307 IPC admittedly took place on 23rd October, 2006 and appears to have been reported for the first time on 10th June, 2007 only. 25. Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the afore-stated principles, it may be noticed that the alleged occurrence attracting Section 307 IPC admittedly took place on 23rd October, 2006 and appears to have been reported for the first time on 10th June, 2007 only. It is also the conceded position that though as per the allegations, 50-60 persons had fired shots indiscriminately with their deadly weapons, yet no one was injured in the said occurrence. It, thus, prima facie, appears that the gun shots were not fired with an intention to kill someone, rather to scare them away so as to take over the possession of the disputed land without any resistance. If that is so, the alleged offence might fall within the mischief of first Part of Section 307 IPC. The alleged weapons of offence have already been recovered from the petitioners. It is also fairly stated by learned State Counsel that the investigation is complete and challan has also been presented. Ms. Rita Kohli, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab is fair enough to state that while presenting the challan, offence under Section 452 IPC has been deleted. It is also not denied that but for Section 307 IPC, rest of the offences invite magisterial trial only. 26. The prosecution/complainant would be under heavy onus to explain the delay in lodging the FIR, more-so when on installation of a new Government in the State of Punjab on 3rd March, 2007, B.I.S. Chahal stood stripped off the political power earlier enjoyed by him. 27. The petitioners, assertion that in fact no occurrence had taken place or that they have been falsely implicated on account of political vendetta, is too far fetched and can not be entertained at this stage. As per their own case, there has been a long drawn dispute between the parties over the disputed land and the possibility of their using men and muscle to take possession thereof, can not be ruled out at this stage. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioners have handed-over a translated copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. along with translated version of the relevant statements etc. It appears from the list of witnesses that in the event of trial, the prosecution proposes to examine as many as 23 witnesses. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioners have handed-over a translated copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. along with translated version of the relevant statements etc. It appears from the list of witnesses that in the event of trial, the prosecution proposes to examine as many as 23 witnesses. It further appears that except three persons, namely, the complainant (Harchand Singh), his grandson (Ranjit Singh) and one Bikkar Singh son of Kartar Singh, rest of the witnesses are police or government officials. In the changed scenario when the petitioner (BIS Chahal) no longer enjoys that political stature accorded to him by the previous regime, there appears to be no tangible reason to apprehend that he will be able to influence the police or Government officials cited as prosecution witnesses. Similarly, having regard to the old and persistent enmity between the parties, it does not appear possible for the petitioners to exert any kind of influence upon the complainant, his grandson or their close associates. That apart, any such attempt if made by the petitioners, can always entail the consequence like cancellation of their bail. 29. As regards to the possibility of the petitioner (B.I.S. Chahal) fleeing away and/or absconding from the trial is concerned, a pre-condition of deposition of his original passport and a written intimation to the Immigration authorities in the Government of India would ensure that he does not flee from the consequences of the trial. 30. Learned State Counsel, however, has not been able to deny that even if the charges are framed at the earliest, the conclusion of the trial would take a considerably long period. The petitioners were arrested on 10th June, 2007 and are presently in judicial custody. No useful purpose whatsoever would be served by their further incarnation. The petitioners have, thus, made out a case for grant of bail. 31. Consequently, and having regard to all the attending circumstances, but without expressing any views on merits, lest it should prejudice either of the parties during trial, these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. 32. Criminal Misc. No.76110 of 2007 whereby the petitioner (B.I.S. Chahal) seeks his transfer from the Central Jail, Patiala to the Central Jail, Ambala, which is otherwise wholly misconceived, however, is dismissed having become infructuous. 33. 32. Criminal Misc. No.76110 of 2007 whereby the petitioner (B.I.S. Chahal) seeks his transfer from the Central Jail, Patiala to the Central Jail, Ambala, which is otherwise wholly misconceived, however, is dismissed having become infructuous. 33. Nothing observed here-in-above shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. 34. Disposed of. ————————————