JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner Hira Singh son of Nirmal Singh has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely Binder, Jodha, Saba, Babbal, Kaga and Makhi, by means of FIR No.133 dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 341 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Banur, District Patiala, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that on 8.12.2010, all the accused armed with swords (kirpans) and iron rods, came at the shop of Hira Singh petitioner, where complainant Gurdip Singh, his brother Harwinder Singh and friend Tanu Sharma were present. They (accused) attacked and caused injuries to the complainant, his brother Harwinder Singh & friend Tanu Sharma, with their respective weapons. According to the prosecution that the petitioner gave single kirpan blow, which landed on the left side of chest of the complainant. 3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that on 8.12.2010, all the accused came at the shop of petitioner and caused injuries to the complainant and his indicated companions with their respective weapons. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner described here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is amply clear from the FIR, that the occurrence had taken place on the shop of the petitioner. He is stated to have caused single kirpan blow on the chest of the complainant. He did not repeat any injury. Under these circumstances, whether he had the requisite intention entailing the provisions of Section 307 IPC or not, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. It is not a matter of dispute that all other co-accused of petitioner, have already been allowed bail. He did not repeat any injury. Under these circumstances, whether he had the requisite intention entailing the provisions of Section 307 IPC or not, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. It is not a matter of dispute that all other co-accused of petitioner, have already been allowed bail. Moreover, he was arrested on 26.8.2011, since then, he is in judicial custody and no longer required to be detained in jail for any purpose. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even since the prosecution did not examine single witness, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing out of the record, as narrated here-inbefore and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, the instant petition is hereby accepted. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court, subject to the condition that he will furnish an affidavit that he will not indulge in any such criminal case in future. 8. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant connection. ---------0.B.S.0------------