JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - As identical points for determination for the grant of regular bail are involved in the indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Petitioners Lakhbir Singh @ Mangu son of Gurdial Singh & Gurbhej Singh alias Sonu son of Angrej Singh (in 1st case) and Hardev Singh alias Debu son of Gurdial Singh (in 2nd petition) have directed the instant petitions for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against them, by way of FIR No.197 dated 5.12.2011, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 324, 326, 427, 452 read with Section 149 IPC, u/ss 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the police of Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 3. Concisely, the prosecution case, emanating from the FIR, is that, on 5.12.2011 at about 1.30 PM, all the accused came to the house of complainant Joga Singh and caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. Accused Bhupinder Singh son of Kashmir Singh and Hardev Singh @ Debu son of Gurdial Singh were armed with .12 bore rifles, whereas the remaining accused were armed with Dattars, kirpans, Gandasis and dangs. The complainant claimed in the FIR that petitioner No.1 Lakhbir Singh alias Mangu gave a kirpan blow, which landed on the leg of Jarnail Singh injured, whereas petitioner No.2 Gurbhej Singh alias Sonu also inflicted a Datter blow, which also hit on the leg of Jarnail Singh. As regards the role of Hardev Singh petitioner is concerned, he was stated to have fired a shot, but did not hit any body (as per the allegations contained in the FIR). In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners and their other co-accused, in the manner depicted here-in-before. 4. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. 4. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 6. As indicated here-in-above that as per the version of the prosecution contained in the FIR, petitioners Lakhbir Singh & Gurbhej Singh only caused injuries on the leg of Jarnail Singh injured. No other specific role/overt act is attributed to them. The prosecution claimed that about 20/25 persons attacked the complainant party. The learned State counsel has pointed out certain contradictions in the statement of Harpreet Singh, son of the complainant, which appear to be an improvement and contradicted the version contained in the FIR. Moreover, Bhupinder Singh accused, who fired a shot, which hit the son of complainant, has already been allowed bail in CRM No. M-7138 of 2012 titled as Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Ranjit Singh, J.) by virtue of order dated 18.5.2012. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner No.1 was arrested on 6.12.2011, whereas petitioner No.2 was arrested on 16.1.2012 and Hardev Singh petitioner was arrested on 20.12.2011. Since then, they are in judicial custody. They are no longer required for any purpose to be detained in jail. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even since prosecution has not examined single witness, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petitions for regular bail are hereby accepted. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------