Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. Petitioners Seema Devi wife of Ravinder Kumar and her son Ramesh Kumar, have instituted the instant petition for regular bail in a case registered against them, by virtue of FIR No.149 dated 10.9.2009, for the commission of offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sarabha Nagar, District Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that it is a case of blind murder. The prosecution is only harping on the statement of complainant Prem Lal. There is no other direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner, except the statement of complainant. It is not a matter of dispute that complainant Prem Lal, while appearing as PW1 in the trial Court, did not support the prosecution case. Instead of supporting, he has totally demolished the prosecution version in its entirety. Moreover, the petitioners were arrested on 12.9.2009 and since then, they are in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain them in jail. The conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time. 5. So, taking into consideration the nature of evidence, period of detention of the petitioners in jail and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 7. Needless to state that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition.