Grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. requires consideration of the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, the nature of the offense, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This order shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.1073 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.1074 of 2009 filed by Smt. Rachna Devi and Ramesh Chand, respectively for releasing them on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 435 of 2009 dated 23.11.2009 registered at Police Station, Una, under Sections 447, 323, 307, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009.

2. Heard and perused the record. In Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009, it has been submitted that petitioner has been implicated in a false case. The incident allegedly took place on 18.11.2009. It is the case of the investigating agency that the matter was compromised between the parties but the FIR was registered on 23.11.2009. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. It has been submitted that the petitioner earlier filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),Una on 3.12.2009 mainly on the grounds that the petitioner did not join the investigation and recovery was to be effected. The petitioner is innocent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. In Cr.MP(M) No. 1074 of 2009 more or less same grounds have been taken for releasing the petitioner on bail as have been taken by the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1073 of 2009.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the grounds that both the petitioners have committed serious offence. On 23.11.2009 a telephonic information was received at Police Post, Mehatpur from Primary Health Centre, Dehla that injured Balwant Rai had come for treatment at the Primary Health Centre and he has received injuries in some quarrel. On this, police party went to Primary Health Centre, Dehla and got the injured medically examined, statement of injured Balwant Rai was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant in his statement has stated that on 18.11.2009 he, his daughters-in-law Manjeet Devi and Neena Devi at about 2.30 p.m. were irrigating their fields. Ramesh Chand and his wife Rachna Devi came there and objected why the complainant party was irrigating their fields. Ramesh Chand was holding spade and Rachna Devi was holding sickle. The complainant party told Ramesh Chand that the complainant party was not damaging the fields of Ramesh Chand but in the meantime, Ramesh Chand gave a spade blow on the head of the complainant and Rachna Devi gave sickle blow on the right hand thumb of the complainant, as a result of which head and hand of the complainant started bleeding. The complainant was rescued by his daughters-inlaw. He was taken to Dehla hospital where the doctor treated him and asked him to go to home. He and his brother compromised the matter but his brother continued to extend threats to him.

4. On 23.11.2009 due to the injuries sustained by complainant, he again felt necessity for medical aid and, therefore, he wanted to take legal action against the assailants. On this case was registered. It has been stated in the status report that Balwant Rai remained admitted at P.G.I., Chandigarh on 23.11.2009 and 24.11.2009. On 24.11.2009 PGI doctors referred the complainant for further treatment at referral hospital, Una. The condition of the complainant deteriorated on 27.11.2009 and he was referred to DMC, Ludhiana where he remained under treatment till 18.12.2009. The recoveries of spade and sickle have been made. It has been stated by the learned Assistant Advocate General that investigation in the case is almost complete. The petitioners had earlier filed bail applications which were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Una. The learned Assistant Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of both the applications.

5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence took place on 18.11.2