YASHPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially the present three petitioners alongwith one Yash Pal had filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail. At the time of preliminary hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had made a prayer for withdrawal of the petition qua Yash Pal. Consequently, notice of motion qua petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 namely Sandeep, Joginder and Dharam Singh was issued to the State of Haryana. It was further directed that in the event of arrest they shall be admitted to interim bail.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset states that as per the directions of January 14, 2003, the petitioners have joined investigation and have furnished their interim bail bonds before the investigating officer. Mr. Dhaliwal then contends that on behalf of Yash Pal another application bearing CO. Misc. No. 5774-M of 2003 was moved. Vide order dated 10.3.2003 he has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. This fact is not disputed by the learned State Counsel. Mr. Dhaliwal then contends that although all the present three petitioners and Yash Pal have been implicated by general allegations and subsequently statement of injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he has attributed main injury on his person to Yash Pal. That injury is on his head which attracted section 308 IPC. Then contents that the allegations qua the present petitioners is that they caused simple injury to the injured. This factual position is also not controverted by the State Counsel.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that there are injuries from the side of the petitioners as well. Four persons, including three ladies have received injuries and a cross-case has also been registered against the complainant.