CRM Nos.30792 & 32619 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CRM No.M-30792 of 2010 Mahabir son of Badle Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent 2. CRM No.M-32619 of 2010 Sukhbir son of Charta ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent Date of Decision:-17.11.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Dr.Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.M-30792 of 2010. Mr.Parveen Gaur, Advocate for Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.M-32619 of 2010. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior D.A.G., Haryana. Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved in the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, petitioners Mahabir son of Badle Ram and Sukhbir son of Charta, have directed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other six co-accused, by virtue of FIR No.107 dated 6.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 452 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station CRM Nos.30792 & 32619 of 2010 2 Bhondsi, Distt.Gurgaon. 3. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that on 6.7.2010, there was an election of member of Gram Panchayat. Ganeshi Lal was declared elected from the reserve quota. To celebrate his success, petitioner Mahabir alongwith Balbir and other persons were going to the temple for offering parshad. As soon as, they reached in front of the house of Bhagmal son of Singh Ram at about 7.00 P.M., in the meantime, the accused came there and started pelting brick bats on them. As a result thereof, Parkash son of Khacheri and Dharam Pal sons of Suraj Mal suffered injuries. 4. Sequelly, during the course of investigation, it revealed that both the parties received injuries and another cross case was registered on the statement of complainant Bhagmal. In this manner and on the basis of aforesaid allegations, the cross cases were registered against both the parties, as indicated here-in-above. 5. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this respect. 7. While issuing notice of motion, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Rattan Pal, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 8. It is not a matter of dispute that no specific role or overt act is attributed to the petitioners. The prosecution claimed that both the parties caused injuries to each other with brick bats, after the declaration of result of Gram Panchayat. It appears to be a case of free fight between the parties and no specific liability can possibly be fastened on any of the petitioners at this preliminary stage. Moreover, it is a case of cross version. Which of the parties was the aggressor, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. CRM Nos.30792 & 32619 of 2010 3 There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 9. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that no role or overt act is attributed to the petitioners and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described 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 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 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 say 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. 17.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge