The role of the accused in the case and other circumstances should be considered in deciding a bail application, and criminal antecedents alone cannot be the basis for rejection of bail.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 75 dated 08.11.2021 registered under Sections 302, 307, 364, 379-B, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC (Sections 307, 379B, 326, 325, 324 of IPC have been added later on) at Police Station Balianwali, District Bathinda.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a lady and has been implicated in the present case along with six other members of her family, including her mother-in-law, Sukhdev Kaur and that as per the FIR, no specific role or injury has been attributed to the petitioner and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2022 and the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 32 witnesses, out of whom, only three have been examined and thus the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the last bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.09.2022 at that stage with liberty to file a fresh petition after the examination of the complainant Harjeet Singh, who is the brother of the deceased and that the said Harjit Singh has been examined as PW-1 and he has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused persons, including the present petitioner did not cause any injury to his brother Gurdev Singh or to the other injured and has been declared hostile. It is further submitted that even the mother of the deceased i.e. Pritam Kaur has been examined as PW-2 and in her examination-in-chief, she has also stated that she has no knowledge regarding the present case and the accused persons, including the present petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased Gurdev Singh or to the other injured persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sukhwinder Singh, who as per the prosecution case, is an eye witness and has also been injured in the incident, has been examined as PW-3 and even he has stated in his evidence that the accused persons, including the present petitioner did not cause any injury to him or Gurdev Singh (deceased) and Satnam Singh. It is submitted that the mother-in-law of the present petitioner Sukhdev Kaur, whose case is similar to the case of the present petitioner, with the exception that she is a 70 year old lady, has been granted the concession of bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 06.08.2022 (Annexure P-5) and the said Gurdev Kaur had also surrendered along with the present petitioner on 02.03.2022. It is submitted that the custody of the present petitioner is one year more than that of said co-accused Gurdev Kaur and that Gurpal Singh @ Jassi Aulakh and Ranjit Singh, who although were not named in the FIR but from whom recovery of Kirpan and Gandasi was effected, have also been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2022. It is further submitted that while granting bail to the mother-in-law of the petitioner, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda had noticed that there were 15 injuries on the person of the deceased and there are total 22 accused persons named in the case. It is submitted that in the said circumstances the petitioner also deserves the concession of regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the present petitioner is involved in two other cases and, thus, is a habitual offender. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been named in the FIR along with other accused and there was a dispute regarding land on account of which Gurdev Singh has been killed by the accused party, which included the present petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that even the other two FIRs, are with respect to the land dispute with the complainant party, and the petitioner has already been granted bail in