CRM No.M-13365 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 1.10.2010 Asha Rani and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, vide order dated 1.5.2010 (Annexure P5), petitioners Asha Rani, Swatantra Kumar and Deepak Kumar, have directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a private complaint case, in which, they were summoned to face trial under sections 148, 307, 323, 380, 427, 452 and 120-B read with section 149 IPC by the Magistrate. 2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, has passed the following order on 7.5.2010:- “Heard. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint, in which the petitioners have been summoned as accused, has been filed as a counter blast to the FIR, which was got registered against them and that there is no medical evidence on the record to support the contention of the complainant that the injury falls under Section 307 IPC and that even anticipatory bail was granted to them by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Notice of motion for 6.7.2010. CRM No.M-13365 of 2010 2 In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the petitioners, i the FIR mentioned in the petition, they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting 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; (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 help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. As is evident from the record that the petitioners were earlier allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, by virtue of order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P3). In pursuance of the said order, the bail and surety bonds submitted by the petitioners were accepted and attested by the Magistrate, vide order dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure P4). Admittedly, it is a case of no injury inviting the penal provisions of section 307 IPC. Since the petitioners have been summoned in the wake of private complaint, so, no recovery is to be effected from them. 5. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed 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. 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, CRM No.M-13365 of 2010 3 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. 1.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge