JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Prem Kumar, son of Ashok Kumar, resident of village Mauwal, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 and 452 read with Section 149, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 76, dated 26.7.2012, registered at Police Station, Mehatpur, District Jalandhar. 2. Learned counsel contends that the FIR in the present case was lodged by Vikas Arora, brother of Manni Arora (since deceased), on 26.7.2012 at about 9.05 a.m., while the alleged occurrence had taken place on 25.7.2012 at 2.30 p.m. at the Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.05 10:31 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-19145-2013 (O&M) 2 shop of Amarjit Singh @ Mintu, uncle of the complainant and the deceased Manni Arora. He further submits that the name of the petitioner was disclosed after about 8 days in the supplementary statement of Vikas Arora. He also contends that only three injuries were found on the dead body of Manni Arora at the time of postmortem examination while the allegations were levelled against as many as 14 persons for causing such injuries. He also contends that similar situate co-accused, namely, Surinderpreet Singh @ Punjab, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.5.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the name of the petitioner emerged after 8 days in the supplementary statement of the complainant, Vikas Arora. He has opposed the grant of bail on account of serious allegations against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is liable to be punished with the aid of Section 149, IPC, and the allegations against him and his co-accused are serious in nature; four witnesses have already been examined and they have fully supported the prosecution version; the case of the prosecution is based upon eye-witness account and the involvement of the petitioner and his co-accused is proved on record, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 5. Heard. 6. Fourteen persons alleged to have caused injuries on the person of the deceased, however, only three injuries were found at the time of autopsy. 5. Heard. 6. Fourteen persons alleged to have caused injuries on the person of the deceased, however, only three injuries were found at the time of autopsy. The petitioner was not named Kapoor Prashant 2013.08.05 10:31 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-19145-2013 (O&M) 3 when the matter was reported to the police by the brother of the deceased, who allegedly witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner belonged to the same area and the complainant knew him earlier. However, after eight days, the name of the petitioner was disclosed in the supplementary statement. No specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. He is behind the bars from 11.8.2012. The applicability of Section 149, IPC, would be a moot point during course of the trial. 7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner, Prem Kumar, son of Ashok Kumar, resident of village Mauwal, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial of the present case, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jalandhar. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————