Crl. Misc. No. M-20077 of 2011 Beena and others Vs. State of Haryana Crl. Misc. No. M-20399 of 2011 Smt. Anguri Devi and others Vs. State of Haryana Crl. Misc. No. M-20962 of 2011 Sunil Dutt and others Vs. State of Haryana Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioners, in Crl. Misc. No. M-20077 of 2011. Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioners, in Crl. Misc. No. 20399 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. 20962 of 2011. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * * AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) In both these cases the two warring factions are seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 223, dated 17.06.2011, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 326 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sadar, District Gurgaon arising out of the same incident. It was not disputed on both sides that it was a fight between the relatives and injuries were inflicted on both sides. I put to learned Counsel that in such a case I would treat all the petitions similarly. Learned Counsel are all agreed that in this situation anticipatory bail should be granted to all the accused persons. -2- Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, however, has opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail on the ground that such an order would tend to encourage the people to take law into their own hands. Though the merit of this argument cannot be denied, yet the present is an incident where close relatives had entered into a dispute. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that they should all be granted the concession of anticipatory bail because this will facilitate a solution of the dispute. In these circumstances these petitions are allowed. A photocopy of the order be placed in the connected files. 15.07.2011 (AJAY TEWARI) Amodh JUDGE