IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 613 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.08.2011 Sandeep Verma and another …. Petitioners Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate Genera. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the applicants on bail in FIR No. 172 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Theog, under Sections 307, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The status report has been filed which has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that prosecution story is that Madan Bhardwaj, complainant and Anil Sharma were travelling in car which was being driven by the complainant. The applicant No.1 over took the car of the complainant and over this petty issue some altercation took between the parties which turned into heated exchange. In the heat of moment, applicant No.1 took out Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes 2 sickle from his car and attacked the complainant as a result of which he sustained injuries. The police was informed and the case was registered. It has been stated that the applicants are innocent, they have committed no offence. They are ready to join the investigation. They are apprehending their arrest on account of registration of the case. They have prayed for grant of bail. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that on the basis of statement of Madan Bhardwaj, FIR has been registered on 1.8.2011. He has alleged that both the applicants inflicted ‘drat’ blow on his head. The injured was got medically examined. The doctor has opined injury No.1 simple but with sharp weapon and injury No.2 simple. The vehicle of applicant No.1 has been taken into possession alongwith papers. The ‘Drat’ has also been recovered. The complainant is in Army and he has joined duty. The prayer has been made by the learned Additional Advocate General for rejection of the bail application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not the case of the investigating agency that the applicants are not joining the investigation. The injuries found on the person of the injured are simple. The car as well as ‘drat’ have been recovered. It has not been stated that some more recoveries are to be made. The complainant has already joined the duty. The investigating agency has not come forward with the plea that the applicants are not co-operating in the investigation, no threat to prosecution witnesses has been alleged. In 3 these circumstances, the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in FIR No. 172 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Theog, under Sections 307, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, they be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the applicants shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and they shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 6. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti. August 18, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.