JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Petitioner-Sham Sunder @ Billa son of Mohan Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely Sarup Singh Bajwa and Sachin Labha etc., vide FIR No.16 dated 06.02.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act(the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC was added later on), by the police of Police Station Division No.2, District Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.02.2013 at about 9.45 PM, a programme of ‘Jaggo’ was going on in the house of petitioner, where Naresh Kumar(deceased) was preparing a movie of the function. During the course of celebration, some altercation took place and the petitioner was stated to have fired a shot, which hit in the stomach, culminating into the death of Naresh Kumar(deceased). The incident originated at a spur of moment, in the wake of some altercation between the petitioner and the deceased. As to whether, the petitioner had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause the indicated offence, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. It is not a matter of dispute that Sarup Singh Bajwa, co-accused of the petitioner, was allowed regular bail by this Court, by way of order dated 02.08.2013 in CRM No.M-21717 of 2013. Sequelly, Sachin Labha, co-accused of the petitioner, was granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, by means of order dated 07.10.2013 in CRM No.M-29508 of 2013. In that eventuality, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner as well. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not examined a single witness, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 6. 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, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only.