JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih , J.: (Oral) - Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bailby filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973, in FIR No.740, dated 20.07.2016, registered at PoliceStation City Karnal, under Sections 302, 324 and 34 of the Indian PenalCode (Sections 323, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/54/59of Arms Act added later on). 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe petitioner has been attributed the role of catching hold the hands ofdeceased – Vijay, which according to the prosecution, has facilitated ingiving stab wounds by co-accused-Sumit. Apart from the petitioner, twoother accused were also stated to have been involved in the commission ofsaid offence, one is Rajat Kumar R/o Katlaheri and another is Rajat Kumar@ Shetty son of Dhan Singh. Co-accused Rajat Kumar R/o Katlaheri wasattributed a rod blow on the neck of the deceased and since nocorresponding injury was found on the person of the deceased, he has beengranted the concession of regular bail. Co-accused Rajat Kumar @ Shettyhas also been granted regular bail by this Court. Counsel for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2016 and out of the total17 prosecution witnesses, only four have been examined. The trial is notlikely to conclude soon and apart from the role as recorded above, no otherovert act has been attributed to the petitioner nor is there any allegation thatthe petitioner was armed with any weapon at the time of commission ofoffence. 3. Counsel for the State, however, submits that if the petitionerhad not caught hold of deceased – Vijay, the other co-accused would nothave given him the stab injuries and therefore, he was fully involved in theoffence and played important role and thus, should not be granted theconcession of regular bail. 4. 3. Counsel for the State, however, submits that if the petitionerhad not caught hold of deceased – Vijay, the other co-accused would nothave given him the stab injuries and therefore, he was fully involved in theoffence and played important role and thus, should not be granted theconcession of regular bail. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for theparties and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since30.07.2016 and apart from the allegations of having caught hold of thedeceased, there is no other overt act nor is it the case of the prosecution thathe was armed with any weapon at the time of offence, especially when thetrial is not likely to conclude at an early date as only four witnesses havebeen examined out of the total 17 witnesses, the present petition is allowed.The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishingpersonal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, Karnal.