Crl. Misc. No.M-16940 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: September 27, 2010 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-16940 of 2010 Baljeet …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-20354 of 2010 Pardeep …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.R. Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners. in both petitions. Mr.Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana. Crl. Misc. No.M-16940 of 2010 [2] -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M-16940 and M-20354 of 2010 for grant of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Sat Pal alleging that the complainant had succeeded in a civil suit on account of which non-applicant Pappal @ Sanjay, petitioner Baljeet and other residents of the village had a grudge with the complainant. On the date of occurrence, when the complainant was present in his house, petitioners alongwith Sanjay, Ballu, Sanjay @ Pappal,. Ajay, Sanjit armed with lathies and jailies came to the house of the complainant and gave a lalkara that let Satpal be taught a lesson. On this, petitioner Baljeet gave a brick blow hitting the complainant above the ankle whereas petitioner Pardeep gave a lathi blow on the left elbow of the complainant. When Satyawan, Anand, Poonam and Satbir approached and intervened, then Sanjay @ Pappal and other Sanjay son of Bablu, gave brick blows on the head of Satbir. Sanjay @ Pappal gave a brick blow and Sanjay gave an iron rod blow on the left leg and Ajay and Sanjit also gave lathi blow on Satbir as a result of which he was fell down and on account of the injury on the forehead, died at the spot. All the accused had given injuries to the complainant, his brother Satbir, his nephew Anand and Poonam wife of Ranjit. Pappal @ Sanjay fired a shot from his pistol and kept standing in Crl. Misc. No.M-16940 of 2010 [3] front of the house. Thereafter number of villagers intervened and Satbir was taken to hospital. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the petitioners alongwith Sanjay, Sanjay @ Pappal, Ajay and Sanjit had inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant-Satpal and his brother Satyawan, Anand and Poonam besides causing the death of Satbir. It has been contended by Mr.A.P.S. Deol, learned counsel for the petitioners that from the same occurrence, a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party at the instance of petitioner Baljeet under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. Petitioner Baljeet received four injuries out of which two injuries have been suffered by sharp edged weapon which are serious in nature. It was submitted that the occurrence had not taken place in front of the complainant house but it was taken at Gau Ghat on Panchayati Land and that the complainant party armed with deadly weapons, a country made pistol, .32 bore revolver, sword, Jailies and lathies attacked the petitioner party and inflicted serious injuries. Petitioner Baljeet and others retaliated in private defence. Motive as attributed was also challenged contending that as a matter of fact, it has been found during the investigation that the complainant party had not won any case of Panchayati land. The petitioners were present at gau ghat and were helping the villagers to construct the same when the complainant party had attacked them. Petitioner-Baljeet has not gave any injury to the deceased. The only injury attributed to petitioner Baljeet is a brick blow on the left leg of the complainant above ankle which Crl. Misc. No.M-16940 of 2010 [4] is simple in nature. The said injury has been inflicted in self-defence whereas Baljit himself had received four injuries. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the allegations against the petitioners as per the FIR and the allegations against the complainant as per the cross-version which has been registered at the instance of petitioner Baljeet. As per the cross-version, petitioner Baljeet had stated that on January 12, 2010 at about 11/12 a.m. when he was doing construction work with JCB alongwith others then Manjeet, Dharminder, Amit, Jatinder, Anand and Rohtash arrived on the spot and JCB was got stopped. When Sanjit and Baljeet objected to it they were abused and attacked. Manjit inflicted lathi blow on right knee, Dharminder gave a lathi blow on the waist, Amit gave a kirpan bow on the hand and left hand, Jatinder gave a kirpan blow and Anand fired in the FIR. Thereafter Rohtash took the pistol of Anand and fired on Sanjit. Thereafter Ranjit fired with his katta which did not hit any one. Thereafter Rohtash took katta from Ranjit and made an attempt to fire. One gun shot hit Sanjit. Meanwhile, the villagers intervened. Four injuries on the person of petitioner- Baljeet, as claimed by him to be gun shot injuries, is not true as is apparent from the opinion of the doctor indicating that there is a possibility of injury No.1 having been caused with lathi and possibilities of injuries No.2, 3 and 4 being caused by Talwar, cannot be ruled out. No doubt, with the aid of Section 149 IPC both the petitioners have been attributed role of having committed the murder of Satbir but brick bat injury that too on the person of complainant has been attributed to Crl. Misc. No.M-16940 of 2010 [5] petitioners. Baljeet is alleged to have given a brick blow on the left leg above ankle of the complainant. So far petitioner Pardeep is concerned, he has not been attributed any injury on the person of deceased. The only injury attributed to him is a lathi blow on the left elbow of the complainant which is simple. No opinion is expressed at this stage whether the petitioners had caused injuries in self-defence or they were entitled under law to cause the said injuries but it is sufficient to observe that no specific injury has been attributed to them on the person of the deceased, as such they can be granted the concession of bail. State counsel has contended that chances of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out. Taking into consideration the fact that a cross-case has been registered on account of the injuries suffered by the petitioners and that the petitioners have not been attributed any specific injury on the person of the deceased, the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. September 27, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE