Baldev Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners Baldev Singh and others have directed the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them by means of FIR No. 60 dated 25.06.2012, on accusation of having committed offence punishable under Sections 452/323/324/325/326/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/25(54) of Arms Act by the police of Police Station City, Mallwanala, District Ferozepur, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, this Court passed the following order on July 25, 2012: -

At the very outset, learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioners were stated to have caused simple injuries. The main injury subject matter of offence u/s 326 IPC on the right arm of complainant-Gurcharan Singh is attributed to main co-accused Sarabjit Singh (non-petitioner). The argument is that it is a case of cross version and three persons from the side of accused Gopal Singh, Darshan Singh and Harjit Singh also received multiple injuries including grievous injuries at the hands of complainant party.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 21.08.2012.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction

At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Harbhajan Singh, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Moreover, simple injuries are attributed to the petitioners and it is a case of cross version.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted vide order dated July 25, 2012 is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged u/s 438(2) Cr.PC. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an petition for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection.