JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - Vide this order, I intend to dispose of Crl.M.No. M-14416 of 2012 titled as Sudhir vs. State of Haryana and Crl. M.No. M-15430 of 2012 titled as Virender @ Monu vs. State of Haryana, as both the petitions arise out of same FIR. 2. As per allegation of the prosecution, there was a dispute between Ravinder with Sumit @ Kala. Sumit @ Kala was called, where Monu and Sanda his supporters were present. That dispute was said to be settled. It is further alleged that on 12.8.2011 at about 7.30/8.00 P.M. Sumit @ Kala and Sanda went in the office of Sudhir, where Sudhir, Virender @ Monu Patt and Ravindra Nai were present in the office. Jonny s/o Pappe, Naveen and Mukesh were also present. Mukesh, Sudhir, Jonny and Ravindra Nai asked Sumit @ Kala that why he had hurled abuses and beat him by giving slaps, on which Sumit @ Kala tendered his apology. Then all of them had taken liquor and set out for their houses. As per disclosure statement made by Mukesh, Sumit @ Kala refused to go to his house and he uttered that he will sleep in the office. According to the prosecution story, Mukesh still aggrieved of the abuses, gave 4-5 blows of iron dao to Sumit @ Kala resulting into his death. As per his disclosure statement, he called the present applicants, Virender @ Monu and Sudhir on telephone and all of them disposed of the dead body of Sumit @ Kala by wrapping the same in the bed sheet and took the same in a car and threw the dead body in Garhi Sampla Canal after removing his clothes. 3. PW Sanda, has given the same story as mentioned above. However, Rinki, sister of the deceased has stated that she suspects that the present petitions alongwith Mukesh and Ravinder have committed the murder of Sumit @ Kala and she has last seen them. 4. Learned State counsel is fair enough to concede that as per version given in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the allegations of actual murder are against Mukesh, whereas both the present applicants have helped Mukesh in disposing of the dead body of Sumit @ Kala. 5. 4. Learned State counsel is fair enough to concede that as per version given in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the allegations of actual murder are against Mukesh, whereas both the present applicants have helped Mukesh in disposing of the dead body of Sumit @ Kala. 5. Applicant- Sudhir earlier applied for grant of bail, but that application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh after some prosecution evidence is led before the Court below. That order is dated 17.1.2012. Challan was presented on 8.11.2011. The next date in the trial Court is stated to be 6.12.2012. 6. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Balraj Singh, has stated at the Bar that there are 32 witnesses, out of which only one official witness namely, Jai Singh, has been examined. 7. So, without commenting on the merits of the case, since allegations are under Section 201 IPC only and the petitioners are in custody since 24.8.2011, i.e. for more than 1 year and 1 month, the application of both the petitioners for grant of bail stands accepted. Both the petitioners, Sudhir and Virender @ Monu, are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------