In deciding a bail application, the court must strike a balance between the future aspects of the accused if he is continued in the company of hard criminals and his prospects of mending himself and becoming a good citizen by living in society and pursuing his educational career.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. By this order I propose to deal with the application for bail filed by one Chamkaur Singh. A case under Sections 302/307/427/447/148/149/323/324/325 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered against eleven persons including the petitioner in F.I.R. No. 74 dated 13.11.1994.

2. The petitioner who is stated to be a student of 10+1 in Ripudaman Government College, Nabha, is alleged to have been falsely implicated in this case on account of party faction. The petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 7-1/2 months. The challan has been filed but the trial has not as yet started. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even as per FIR the accused party was already present in the field which is owned and possessed by them and it is the complainant party who wanted to disturb their possesin and they adopted illegal methods for the same and as such the complainant party was aggressor. According to the learned counsel there are cross cases i.e. a case under sections 307/427/448/148/149 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act have been registered against the complainant party and they are also facing trial. Learned counsel submits that hardly any role has been attributed to Chamkaur Singh and the alleged role of giving soti blows on the back of the deceased, at the face of it, is not plausible. The deceased, as per the Medical Report, had hardly suffered any serious injury on the back and there was no fracture of the spine or such other serious injury. Thus counsel submits that even if the allegations in the First Information Reports are of any consequence in regard to the petitioner, the injury has been caused in self defence and as such the petitioner, in the light of the above submissions, be granted bail.

3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State and Senior Advocate Mr. Ghai appealing for the complainant has submitted that the role of the petitioner is definite. He has, in fact, joined others to give soti blows even after the deceased had fallen on the ground and as such the accused are aggressor party and no protection is available to them.

4. I have heard the parties at some length.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that co-accused Pal Singh has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge while Zora Singh and Kuldip Singh have been allowed bail by the High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 4887-M of 1995 and Criminal Misc. No. 8551-M of 1995 respectively. The role attributed to Zora Singh is identical to that of the present petitioner.

6. Which of the parties had been aggressor and which one of them exceeded their right of self defence and which party is actually guilty offender would have to be seen at the trial and can be commented only after the conclusion of the trial. At the time of decision of bail application the Court can no way travel into realm of evidence or probabilities which may ultimately be held to be correct or otherwise by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 1341 and State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, 1995(1) RecentCR 711 to argue that they have exceeded their right of self defence and as such are not entitled to the protection of law. The counsel has heavily relied upon Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1993 Criminal Law Times 427 to argue that wherever the cross cases are registered against parties and both the parties had been injured the petitioner would be entitled to bail.

7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the co-accused with the identical role has already been released on bail by this Court, I find no reason to deny the same benefit to this petitioner. There is no doubt that other co-accused as mentioned in the FIR have been assigned definite role which may be termed upon trial as serious offences. The Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the other