Criminal Misc. No. M-15821 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15821 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.7.2009 Dhir Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very out-set, submitted that he does not press the prayer for bail on behalf of petitioner No. 2- Satbir son of Babu Ram. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed at this stage. The present petition is considered only qua petitioner No. 1-Dhir Singh son of Dhila Ram and petitioner No. 3- Sugna son of Jainara. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a case where the complainant party trespassed into the house of the petitioners, which was in their possession since long after purchasing the same from the owner thereof. Four of the persons in the complainant side were life convicts, who had already undergone their sentence. Whatever action was taken by the petitioners was, in fact, in their self-defence. Just to harass, 17 persons have been named as accused in the FIR. Unfortunately, one person, namely, Sunder Pal in the complainant side had expired. The other side had also suffered injuries in the fight. A perusal of the FIR or the other statements recorded subsequently clearly establish that neither petitioner No. 1- Dhir Singh nor petitioner No. 3- Sugna had inflicted any blow on the person of deceased-Sunder Pal. They were allegedly carrying only lathis, with Criminal Misc. No. M-15821 of 2009 [2] which certain simple injuries were caused. They are already in custody since 27.11.2008 and 11.2.2009 respectively. Out of 17 accused, only three have been released on bail by the trial court, who were attributed simple injuries. Other 14 accused are in custody. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the action of the group on the petitioners' side was clearly much more than what was required in private defence. One person from the side of the complainant had expired. The petitioners were part of the unlawful assembly. Considering the fact that it is a case registered under Section 302 IPC along with various other sections, the petitioners do not deserve concession of bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, as far as claim for bail with regard to petitioner No. 1- Dhir Singh and petitioner No. 3-Sugna is concerned. A perusal of the material on record shows that none of the aforesaid petitioners had inflicted any blow on the person of deceased-Sunder Pal. They have been attributed injuries to the witnesses, which were found to be simple in nature. I do not deem it appropriate to elaborate much, least the same prejudice the case of either of the parties. However, I find that petitioner No. 1- Dhir Singh and petitioner No. 3-Sugna deserve to be released on bail pending trial. Accordingly, it is directed that they be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Panipat. The petition is disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.7.2009 mk