CRM-M No. 20027 of 2011 **** Surinder Pal Singh and another vs. State of Punjab Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. **** This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 311 dated 21.12.2008, under Sections 307/148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana. On July 20, 2011 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel relies upon the order dated 31.05.2011 passed in CRM-M No. 9468 of 2011 which has been filed by the father of the petitioner. The said order reads as under:- “This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No.311 dated 21.12.2008, under Sections 307/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is a cross version case and even though the allegations are that the gun of the complainant party was snatched and there was firing also, yet as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory there is no evidence of any firing having taken place. Learned DAG, on instructions from HC Nazar singh, has accepted this fact. He has also read out the report of the FSL in this regard. In the circumstances, considering the fact that it is a cross version case, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to report to the investigating officer on 06.06.2011 between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and later on as and when required. The investigating officer shall CRM-M No. 20027 of 2011 -2- release him on bail to his satisfaction subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of.” Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that in view of that prima facie finding the petitioners should be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Notice of motion. Mr. S.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, at the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to supply one copy of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day. Adjourned to 09.08.2011. In the meantime arrest of the petitioners shall remain stayed.” Today learned DAG has stated that the statement made on that date may not be entirely correct because there is some other evidence that firing had taken place. Be that as it may, the facts still remain that there is inculpatory as well as exculpatory evidence. Of course, the effect there of would be seen by the trial Court but at this stage the petitioners would have to be granted the benefit. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Let the petitioners appear before the investigating officer on 18.08.2011 between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 CRM-M No. 20027 of 2011 -3- p.m. The investigating officer shall release them on bail to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE August 09, 2011 sunita