IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 27435 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 10, 2010. Raj Kumar ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) Crl. Misc. No. M- 27969 of 2010(O&M). Ram Darshan and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Bhavna, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM No.M-27435 of 2010 This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.71 dated 28.04.2009, under Sections 307/326/324/506/148/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 17.09.2010 in Crl.Misc.No.M-27435 of 2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.Misc.No.48962 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No.M-27435 of 2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that with regard to the alleged occurrence, initially the inquiry was conducted by DSP and cancellation report was prepared but subsequently on the basis of another application submitted by the other party, order for reinvestigation was passed and on the basis of second inquiry, ordered at the instance of DIG, the challan was presented. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner himself received as many as nine injuries and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he raised lalkara and no injury has been attributed to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and no recovery is to be effected from him. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 10.11.2010. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall also comply with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as under:- 2 CRM No.M-27435 of 2010 (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.09.2010 in Crl.Misc.No.M-27969 of 2010 passed the following order:- “Crl.Misc.No.49901 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No.M-27969 of 2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he does not want to press this petition qua petitioner No.2 –Om Parkash. Dismissed as withdrawn qua petitioner No.2 –Om Parkash. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is a case of version and cross-version and both the parties have received injuries in the alleged occurrence. Initially investigation was conducted by DSP and cancellation report was prepared but subsequently on the basis of an application submitted by the complainant, reinvestigation was ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that as per allegations in the FIR, petitioner No.1-Ram Darshan gave one gandasi blow from the reverse side on the inner portion of the left thumb of the complainant and another gandasi blow on the right little finger of the complainant. Petitioner No.3-Nanak Chand gave gandasi blow on the head of the complainant but the same was declared simple in nature. The injury under Section 3 CRM No.M-27435 of 2010 326 IPC has been attributed to co-accused Om Parkash. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that co-accused Raj Kumar has also approached this Court by way of filing Crl.Misc. No.M-27435 of 2010, wherein, notice of motion has been issued for 10.11.2010 and arrest has also been stayed. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 10.11.2010. To be heard with Crl.Misc. No. M-27435 of 2010. Interim order in the same terms as in Crl. Misc. No. M- 27435 of 2010.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 17.09.2010 and 23.09.2010. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of Raj Kumar, Ram Darshan and Nanak Chand are accepted and orders dated 17.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 4 CRM No.M-27435 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 10, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 5