JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Petitioners Jaskaran Singh son of Babu Singh, Bant Singh son of Gurdass Singh and Surender Singh alias Chhinda son of Gajja Singh have directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against them along with their other co-accused, vide FIR No.149 dated 29.7.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323 read with section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 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 help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that initially, the instant case was registered against the accused for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 148, 307 and 323 read with section 149 IPC, but subsequently, during the course of investigation, the offence u/s 307 IPC was deleted and offence u/s 285 IPC was added. The petitioners were earlier granted regular bail by this Court. Thereafter, since the trial Court has again framed the charge u/s 307 IPC, so, they were again arrested on 30.4.2013. It is also not a matter of dispute that no specific injury or role is attributed to petitioners Jaskaran Singh and Bant Singh, whereas the prosecution claimed that petitioner Surender Singh caused a gandasi blow on the person of Darshan Singh, but there is no corresponding injury on his person, having been caused with a gandasi. Moreover, it is a case of version & cross version. In that eventuality, which of the parties was aggressor and whether the provisions of section 307 read with section 149 IPC are attracted to the case of petitioners, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioners earlier remained in custody for about 2½ months. Not only that, after their arrest, now they are in judicial custody since 30.4.2013 and no useful purpose would be served to further detain them in jail. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioners earlier remained in custody for about 2½ months. Not only that, after their arrest, now they are in judicial custody since 30.4.2013 and no useful purpose would be served to further detain them in jail. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet examined a single witness, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanated from the record, as depicted 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 the main case, the instant petition for regular bail is 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. 7. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------