CRM Nos.M-33651 & 33835 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-33651 of 2010 Anil Kumar son of Vinod Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-33835 of 2010 Krishan Lal and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:-1.12.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Jasjit Singh Bedi and Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocates for the petitioners Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Petitioners Amit Kumar son of Vinod Kumar, Krishan Lal son of Chetan Dass, Tilak Raj son of Gusai Ram, Mohinder Kumar son of Ushnara Rai, Happy alias Sandeep son of Ram Singh Saini, Puran Parkash son of Mam Raj, Jagdish son of Singh Ram and Vasu Dev son of Gosain Ram, have filed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against CRM Nos.M-33651 & 33835 of 2010 2 them, alongwith their other co-accused, vide FIR No.61 dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Naggal, District Ambala, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 27.10.2010, the election of the office bearers of Managing Committee of N.D.S.D.R. School, Segti was scheduled. The accused party was stated to have locked the office portion of the school. The matter was reported to the police. At about 9.30 A.M., the complainant party reached the Segti School in a private vehicle. At that time, Head Master Mahesh Singla, who was the Election Officer, met them in the school. 15/20 persons were sitting in front of the office of the school, while 20/25 persons were sitting in the adjoining class room. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused gave slaps and fist blows to complainant Tarun Kumar. They were stated to have beaten him with dandas and snatched his mobile set and one gold chain. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that on 27.10.2010, the accused party gave slaps and fist blows, caused injuries to complainant party with dandas and snatched the mobile phone and gold chain of the complainant. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner described here-in-above. 5. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this context. 7. At the very outset, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Ishwar Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no CRM Nos.M-33651 & 33835 of 2010 3 longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from them. 8. What is not disputed here is that both the parties gathered at the spot on the eve of election of members of the Managing Committee of NDSDR School Segti. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the complainant party also caused injuries to petitioner Amit Kumar, which is clear from MLR (Annexure P2) in the same incident. A cross case was also registered against the complainant party, vide DDR (Annexure P3). The incident originated at the spur of the moment without any motive on the day of election of the Managing Committee of the School, in which, both the parties received injuries in the melee at the hands of each other. Meaning thereby, it is a case of cross version and which of the parties was the aggressor, will be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any criminal case. It is not a matter of dispute that Mandeep Singh, co-accused of the petitioners, has already been allowed regular bail by this Court, vide order of even date passed in CRM No.M-34004 of 2010. 9. 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, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 10. 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 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 CRM Nos.M-33651 & 33835 of 2010 4 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. 11. Needless to mention 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. 1.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge