JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- This petition has been moved by Kala Singh, Bagga Singh and Jagraj Singh seeking their regular bail in case FIR No.20 dated 26.2.2009 registered under Sections 307/324/323/148/149 of IPC at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur. 2. The facts in brief are that Simarjit Singh made a statement before the police in the terms that yesterday on 25.2.2009 at about 7:00 P.M., I after doing my domestic work was returning from Lehra on my scooter. When I was about 5 to 7 karams behind near the Pulley, meanwhile, Tarsem Singh armed with Takua, Jagraj Singh armed with gandasa, Pala Singh armed with soti each were standing near the wall of the school. Tarsem Singh gave a lalkara that he be taught a lesson for doing the accounts of the Panchayat and he be done to death. On saying this, Jagraj Singh (referring to the petitioner) delivered gandasa blow hitting me (Simarjit Singh) on the right side of my head. Tarsem Singh gave takua blow which also landed on the forehead from its reverse side. Kala Singh dealt soti blow, hitting on the right side of my head. Tarsem Singh gave a takua blow which landed on my little finger from the reverse side. Besides this, more blows were given by him on the left leg. Bagga Singh (referring to the petitioner) gave a soti blow which fell on my left thigh. Bhupinder Singh delivered soti blow which landed on my right foot. I fell down on the ground and raised alarm “Maarta-Maarta.” 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the injuries attributed to all the petitioners have been declared simple in nature and they being in custody since 16.3.2009 may be admitted to bail. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the complainant pressed into service that in view of the observations rendered in re: State of M.P. v. Kashiram & Others, [2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 716] : 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 956, Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 212 and Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 662, the petitioners are disentitled to be released on bail. 6. I have well considered the rival contentions. 7. 6. I have well considered the rival contentions. 7. A glance through Kashiram and others’ case (supra) would reveal that it was a criminal appeal matter wherein it was observed that to justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted and it is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. It is apt to be borne in mind that it is a bail matter. In re: Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 212, the petitioners were armed with gandasa each and both of them had caused injuries on the head of Harmel Singh. The second petitioner had even allegedly caused fracture on the right ankle, whereas in the present one, it is the specific case of the prosecution that Kala Singh as well as Bagga Singh – petitioners were armed with soti each though Jagraj Singh – petitioner was armed with gandasa. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the injuries attributed to the petitioners are simple in nature. In Annexure P.2, radiological examination report, it has been observed that “no bony injury seen in X-rays films. So injuries No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 are simple in nature.” Thus no mileage can be driven by the complainant from the observations rendered in re: Karamjit Singh (supra) as well as in re: Rajender Singh (supra). The observations were made while disposing of Criminal Appeal. Thus, the observations made therein are also of no assistance to the complainant. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have been in custody since 16.3.2009 and the injuries attributed to them have been declared simple in nature and the trial is not likely to be concluded within a measurable distance of time, the petitioners are admitted to bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. However, it is clarified that the above observations in no manner shall be construed to mean an expression of opinion on merits of the case. ----------