CRM No.M-24505 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 Raju and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.A.S.Barnala, Advocate for Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Surinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Sessions Judge, petitioners Raju son of Madan Lal and Pintu sons of Gurdip Singh, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, vide FIR No.177 dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure P3) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 326 and 452 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, Distt. Gurdaspur, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.), while issuing notice of petition, has passed the following order on 23.8.2010:- “Contends that from a perusal of the FIR, it is clear that grievous injury has been attributed to non-applicant Sonu. According to learned counsel, petitioners are alleged to have caused simple injuries. Notice of motion for 20.09.2010. CRM No.M-24505 of 2010 2 Meanwhile, in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:- i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer 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 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be allowed in this regard. 4. What is not disputed here is that petitioner No.1 Raju was alleged to have caused two simple injuries, one to complainant Barjinder Singh and second to Tarlochan Singh PW with iron rod. Similar role is assigned to petitioner No.2 Pintu, except that he was having a Sota. The injuries attributed to the petitioners are simple and on non-vital parts. All the offences alleged against them are triable by the Court of Magistrate. The learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Kishan Chand, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any other case. As even the police did not submit the challan, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. 5. Iron rod and Sota are not the weapons of offence as such. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the 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 petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining CRM No.M-24505 of 2010 3 circumstances of the case. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 14.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge