CRM No.M-32195 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.12.2010 Dilbagh Singh alias Bagha son of Sada Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Dilbagh Singh alias Bagha son of Sada Ram, has instituted the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a cross case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, vide FIR No.76 dated 3.6.2010 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 read with section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 4. At the very outset, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Ashwani Kumar, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from him. 5. What is not disputed here is that petitioner received five injuries, including fracture on his head, vide MLR (Annexure P2) at the hands of the opposite party, who are accused in the main case. Nine persons were arrayed as an accused in the main case, which was registered in the wake of statement of wife of CRM No.M-32195 of 2010 2 the petitioner, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with section 149 IPC. Since it is a case of cross version, in which, the petitioner has also received injuries including fracture on his head and which of the parties was the aggressor, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as narrated 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 petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he 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) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 8. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. Sequelly, if the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant direction. 7.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge