Mahabir vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved in the above indicated petitions, arising out of the

same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts.

Invoking the provisions of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioners Mahabir son of Badle Ram and Sukhbir son of Charta, have

directed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other six co-accused, by

virtue of FIR No. 107 dated 6.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 452 and 506

read with Section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Bhondsi, Distt. Gurgaon.

Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that on 6.7.2010, there was an election of member of Gram Panchayat. Ganeshi Lal was declared elected

from the reserve quota. To celebrate his success, Petitioner Mahabir alongwith Balbir and other persons were going to the temple for offering

parshad. As soon as, they reached in front of the house of Bhagmal son of Singh Ram at about 7.00 P.M., in the meantime, the accused came

there and started pelting brick bats on them. As a result thereof, Parkash son of Khacheri and Dharam Pal sons of Suraj Mal suffered injuries.

Sequelly, during the course of investigation, it revealed that both the parties received injuries and another cross case was registered on the

statement of complainant Bhagmal. In this manner and on the basis of aforesaid allegations, the cross cases were registered against both the

parties, as indicated here-in-above.

Notice of the petitions was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply,

to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this respect.

While issuing notice of motion, the Petitioners were directed to join the investigation. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on

instructions from HC Rattan Pal, has submitted that the Petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further

interrogation at this stage.

It is not a matter of dispute that no specific role or overt act is attributed to the Petitioners. The prosecution claimed that both the parties caused

injuries to each other with brick bats, after the declaration of result of Gram Panchayat. It appears to be a case of free fight between the parties

and no specific liability can possibly be fastened on any of the Petitioners at this preliminary stage. Moreover, it is 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 by the trial Court. There is no history of previous

involvement of the petitioners in any such case.

Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that no role or overt actis attributed to the Petitioners and totality of other facts and

circumstances,emanating from the record, as described here-in-above and without commentingfurther anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the

case of either side during thecourse of the trial of the case, the present Petitioners are entitled to anticipatorybail in the obtaining circumstances of

the instant case.

Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, thePetitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and

suretybonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer,subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves

available forinterrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall notdirectly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing suchfacts to the Court or to any police officer and

(iii) they will not leave India withoutprior permission of the trial Court.

Needless to say that in case, the Petitioners do not cooperate or jointhe investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an

application forcancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection.