Bijja Ram @ Vijay Kumar and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No. M-25964 of 2013 titled Bijja Ram and another Vs. State of Punjab and another (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-25078 of 2013 titled Tarsem lal Vs. State of Punjab and another (for short "the 2nd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts. Petitioners, have preferred the separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 45 dated 14.11.2010, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 379, 326, 323, 148, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Sadar Rampura, District Bathinda, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed, by this Court, in 1st case on August 13, 2013: -

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case, in order to wreak vengeance. During the course of investigation, they (petitioners) were found innocent and were exonerated by the police. They were subsequently summoned by the trial Court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. without any legal basis. The argument is that the injury subject matter of offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, is attributed to main accused Gopal Ram (non-petitioner). The argument further proceeds that the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised in Crl. Misc. No. M-25078 of 2013, in which, notice of motion has already been issued, by this Court, by means of order dated 05.08.2013.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 23.08.2013.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit them on (provisional) bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

Sequelly, similar order was passed in 2nd case, by this Court, on August 05, 2013 as well.

At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record his affidavits to the effect that the bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the petitioners, in pursuance of orders of this Court, were accepted and attested by the trial Court. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted and the interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioners, vide orders dated August 13, 2013 (in 1st case) and August 05, 2013 (in 2nd case), is hereby made absolute.