JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik J.: (Oral) - The petitioner, by way of instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeks bail pending trial in the case arising out of FIR No. 873 dated 27.10.2011, under Sections 307, 364, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar. 2. Notice of motion was issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the version of the complainant-Anil himself, the incident has taken place on the spur of moment. The injured as well as the petitioner with some of their friends were taking liquor. While they were taking liquor, quarrel between complainant and accused took place, which got flared up. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in this view of the matter, no prior meeting of minds could be alleged. He further submits that although gun shot injury has been attributed to the petitioner, yet since he is inside the jail for the last about 10 months, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him inside the jail, any further because the trial is going to take considerable time. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Mahabir Pradad, Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar, submits that charge has been framed and the case has now been fixed for 26.10.2012, for prosecution evidence. He further submits that since allegations against the petitioner are direct, serious and specific, he is not entitled for the bail pending trial. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one is a fit case for extending the benefit of bail pending trial to the petitioner. I say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter 7. Firstly, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, has already been presented to the learned court of competent jurisdiction. Secondly, prosecution evidence is yet to start and the trial will take considerable time. The petitioner is inside the jail for the last about 10 months and he will face the trial, however, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner inside the jail, any further. 8. Secondly, prosecution evidence is yet to start and the trial will take considerable time. The petitioner is inside the jail for the last about 10 months and he will face the trial, however, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner inside the jail, any further. 8. Thirdly, the view taken by this Court finds support from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra versus C.B.I., [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 113] : 2011 (4), RCR (criminal), 898. 9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail pending trial to the satisfaction of learned trial court. 10. Resultantly, the instant petition stands allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------