CRM No.M-30542 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-16.11.2010 Rajesh son of Sohan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Gupta, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC., petitioner Rajesh son of Sohan Lal has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.315 dated 30.9.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 3. While issuing notice of motion, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Om Parkash, has submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. The petitioner was stated to have caused injuries to complainant Sunita on 13.9.2010, while the present case was registered on 30.9.2010, after the delay of about 17 days of the occurrence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact, the complainant party entered the house of the petitioner and caused injuries to the wife of the petitioner, which is clear from the MLR (Annexure P1). The mother of CRM No.M-30542 of 2010 2 the petitioner lodged a complaint (Annexure P2) against the complainant party on 16.9.2010. It appears to be a case of cross version. Which of the parties was the aggressor, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case by the trial Court. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that the wife of the petitioner sustained eight injuries at the hands of the complainant party, which is clear from the MLR (Annexure P1). Only simple injuries are attributed to the petitioner. All the offences alleged against him are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. 6. 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 petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present 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 in case, 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 connection. 16.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge