The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of medical evidence of a dangerous injury and the duration of pre-trial detention can be considered in granting bail for an offence under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

M.L. Koul, J. - Reply filed by Mr. Grewal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Bhola Singh petitioner who has been accused of an offence under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station, Phul District Bhatinda under FIR No. 50 dated 5.7.96 for having caused an injury on the forehead of Balvinder Singh, who has since been discharged from the hospital, is seeking bail on various grounds and one of the grounds is that as the disturbance was caused with his water channel which irrigates his fields, as a consequence of that scuffle took place and the above mentioned victim got injured. The case was registered under the said provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the investigation has been completed. The accused has been challaned before a competent court of law. The punishment provided for the said offence is 7 years and no medical record is available on the record of the file produced by the prosecution that the injury sustained by the victim was dangerous or that it could cause his death as well. As no medical evidence is available on the record and the sentence provided for the offence is 7 years, therefore, this court cannot at the moment adjudicate on the merits of the case for the purpose of grant or refusal of bail.

2. Since the matter is fixed before the trial court for the purposes of the charge or discharge of the accused and the accused petitioner is already in jail for the last 2 months, he is not supposed to languish in jail as a matter of punishment unless guilt of the accused is brought home.

3. In such circumstances, the accused-petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the amount of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety and personal recognizance bond in the said amount, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda.

4. However, the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without his prior permission and shall not make any efforts to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and if he does so the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without the intervention of this Court, if such an application for cancellation of bail is moved against the accused and it is proved that he has tampered with the prosecution witnesses.

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.