day. The pet i tioner was named in the FI R . However, the eye-witnesses , complainant- P yara Singh and Kapil have s i nce been examined before th e learned trial C ourt. Learned counsel for the p etitioner has placed on record a certified copi e s of testimonies of these witnes s es. Complainant-Pyara Singh i s shown to hav e stated that on the fateful day, h e could not see the assailants a s there was no l ight, and the street was dark. H e deposed that he had not see n the petitioner causing injuries to the victim a n d the co-accused. This witnes s had been decl a red hostile and allowed to be c r oss examined by learned publi c prosecutor b u t is shown to have mainta i ned the same stand, thereb y exonerating t h e petitioner from the allega t ions as levelled against him . Further, eye- w itness Kapil deposed before t he Trial Court that he did no t know the peti t ioner and affirmed that neither t he petitioner nor the co-accuse d committed any offence. He was also decla r ed hostile and cross-examined , however, he f irmly adhered to the testimony . Taking into consideration th e nature of the e vidence which has come on rec o rd in the form of testimonies o f the most mat e rial witnesses i.e. the complai n ant and eye-witness Kapil, th e period spent by the petitioner in custod y and the attendant facts an d circumstance s of the case, this Court is of t he considered opinion that th e petitioner has made out a case for grant o f release on bail in his favour . Accordingly, the petition is allowed and t h e petitioner is ordered to b e released on b ail subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to th e satisfaction o f the learned trial Court/C h ief Judicial Magistrate/ Dut y Magistrate co n cerned.
