Criminal Misc. No.8520/M of 2008. -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision : 12.5.2008. Tej Singh and others ..... Petitioners. vs. State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents. Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Madan. Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sudhir Makkar, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr.Vipan K.Bali, Advocate, for respondent no.2. R.S.Madan, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in a complaint case. It is contended by the learned counsel that an occurrence took place on 22.7.2007 at about 12.00 p.m. when 35 persons came to the fields of the petitioners to get forcible possession of the land. In the said occurrence two persons died at the spot, namely, Yoginder and Randhir and about 22 persons suffered injuries. After the said occurrence, the injured were shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak, for medico legal examination and treatment. They remained their from 1 'O' clock to 3.30 p.m. It was on 23.7.2007, an unidentified dead-body was recovered near the fields of the petitioners. Later on that person was identified as Bijender son of Ramphal. After the post-mortem examination, the dead- body was handed over to the father and grand-father of deceased (Bijender) on 24.7.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant along with other persons was booked in a case bearing FIR Criminal Misc. No.8520/M of 2008. -2- No.187 dated 22.7.2007, registered at Police Station, Meham, under Sections 302, 148, 149, 447, 216, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. It was on 23.1.2008, after a gap of about six months, respondent Naveen filed a complaint against the present petitioners in the court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 148, 149 and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, as a counter-blast, to put pressure on the petitioners to compromise the case. He further contended that no family member of Bijender (deceased) has filed any complaint against anybody till date. It is respondent Naveen who filed the present complaint without offering any explanation of delay in the lodging of complaint. During the pendency of this petition, petitioners no.1, 3 and 4 were arrested by the police, therefore, the petition qua them is dismissed. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the simple ground that Naveen respondent is the only eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, he has filed the present complaint. The present complaint was filed on 23.1.2008 against deceased Yoginder as well. No complaint was ever made to the police by the relation of the deceased Bijender. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances appearing in the case that there is unexplained delay of six months in lodging the complaint, petitioners no.2, and 5 to 15 are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Meham. This order shall remain in force, till the case is committed to the court of Sessions, to enable the petitioners to apply for regular bail. It is made clear that once the regular bail application is moved before the court concerned, and if rejected, in that eventuality, the operation Criminal Misc. No.8520/M of 2008. -3- of this order will come to an end, and in that event, the petitioners would surrender to the custody of the court concerned. Disposed of. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 12.5.2008. (R.S.Madan) vs. Judge.