JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) - Petitioner-Gurtej Singh son of Ranjit Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.117 dated 05.07.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 336, 451, 323, 325 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of The Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Sohana, District S.A.S. Nagar. 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 of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. Precisely, the prosecution, inter alia, claimed that, on 05.07.2013, the petitioner and his other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and came to the spot. Main accused Baljit Singh and Gurdeep Singh were stated to have fired shots, which hit on the persons of Satnam Singh and Gursewak Singh and caused injuries to injured PWs with respective weapons. It was claimed that, petitioner Gurtej Singh has fired shot, which landed on the left thigh of Satnam Singh (complainant). It is not a matter of dispute that, injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and on non-vital part of the body of the complainant. No other injury is attributed to him. Not only that, it is a case of version and crossversion in which, the petitioner has also sustained a grievous injury and his other companions received multiple injuries, at the hands of complainant’s party, in the same very incident. In that eventuality, as to whether the penal provision of vicarious liability, as contemplated under Section 149 IPC, is attracted to the facts of the present case against the petitioner or not and which of the party was the aggressor, inter alia, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 5. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2014. 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. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2014. 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. Since, not even a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, 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 facts and 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 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. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————