JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.(Oral) - The petitioners Savitri, Sukhdev @ Sukha and Sunder @ Kala, by way of above mentioned two petitions seek regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 99 dated 3.3.2012 at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal for an offence punishable under sections 342, 436 and 506 IPC read with section 34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 29.2.2012 while the FIR has been lodged on 3.3.2012 i.e. after a delay of 3 days. According to him, there is no explanation for this delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that the petitioners are though accused of giving beating to the complainant and his wife and setting their house on fire, yet they are not assigned any specific injuries. According to him, the allegations in this regard are general in nature. He further submits that the petitioners are not seen by the complainant setting his house on fire. According to him, the house could go on fire for any independent reason. He further submits that the allegations of the complainant in the FIR are contradictory and no reliance can be placed on them. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have committed a heinous offence by putting the house of the complainant on fire in which the complainant and his wife had been living and they have been saved with lot of difficulty. 4. There are two conflicting allegations in the FIR. At one place, it has been mentioned by the complainant that they had a narrow escape from the fire and they then informed the police in this regard. At another place, the complainant claims that they were taken out of the burning house and locked room by the police and that the police had controlled the fire of his house with a lot of difficulty. Once the complainant claims that he had a narrow escape from the fire and that he had informed the police, it would mean to convey that he had already escaped the fire and after escaping therefrom, he informed the police. He cannot be then heard saying that he was taken out from the locked and burning house by the police. 5. He cannot be then heard saying that he was taken out from the locked and burning house by the police. 5. The complainant, although, mentions in the FIR that three accused came to his house having lathi and gandasa in their hands and they attacked him and his wife, yet he only says that Sukhdev gave him gandasa blow. He does not tell as to where that blow landed. He further states that 2/3 lathi blows were given to him and he does not specify as to who out of remaining two petitioners gave those blows. 6. The petitioners are in custody since 4.3.2012. Looking to the nature of the allegations against the petitioners but without commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioners to be entitled to bail. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Karnal.