CRM No.M-23616 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 4.10.2010 Mukhwant Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Nemo for the petitioners Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioners Mukhwant Singh and Sukhwant Singh, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case, registered against them, vide FIR No.131 dated 18.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC by the Police of Police Station Dhariwal, Distt. Gurdaspur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Having heard the learned State counsel, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, has passed the following order on 17.8.2010:- “Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the injury, which was found to be grievous, was not attributed to any of the petitioners and as per the averments made in the FIR, only Sukhwant Singh, petitioner was armed with a dang whereas Mukhwant Singh, petitioner, was empty handed. A perusal of the documents annexed with the petition shows that initially the FIR was registered CRM No.M-23616 of 2010 2 under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners were arrested and released on bail. It does not appear that they misused the concession of bail. Notice of motion for 4.10.2010. In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioners, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i) they shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating officer; (ii)they shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and (iii)they shall not leave the limits of the country without prior permission of the Court.” 4. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sham Sunder, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that only simple injuries are attributed to the petitioners. All the offences, alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Whether the provisions of vicarious liability under section 34 IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety CRM No.M-23616 of 2010 3 bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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 and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to state that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. 4.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge