The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the discretion of the judge in granting bail, and the need to balance competing factors while deciding on bail applications.

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Since all the bail petitions arise out of the same FIR, as such, these were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

2. Bail petitioners, named hereinabove, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, praying therein for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 13 of 2019 dated 25.1.2019 under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 5056 IPC and S.3(1)(r) and 3(2)(b)(v a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Sequel to orders dated 4.2.2019, ASI Kamlender Singh, Police Station, Dharampur, Solan, HP, has come present along with the record. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate sought permission of this court to make submissions on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same, as such, Mr. Parmar is permitted to make submissions in addition to the submissions to be made by the learned Additional Advocate General.

5. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 25.1.2019, police party headed by ASI Roshan Lal visited the spot of dispute after having received telephonic information and recorded statement of complainant, Sushma Devi, under S.154 CrPC, who alleged that on 25.1.2019, when she had gone along with her daughters Sonia and Tamanna and mother-in-law, Smt. Hema Devi to the jungle for grazing cattle, then at about 1.30 pm, all the bail petitioners gave them beatings with Danda and Darat (sickle), as a consequence of which, she as also her family members named above, suffered serious injuries. Complainant also alleged that the bail petitioners, at the time of alleged incident called them by their caste. On 25.1.2019 itself, police got the complainant party medically examined at CHC Dharampur. Medical Officer, CHC Dharampur, after having medically examined the complainant party, opined the injuries suffered by them to be simple in nature, save and except one injury suffered by complainant, Sushma Devi, which was opined to be grievous. In the aforesaid background, FIR under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 506 IPC and Ss.3(1)(r) and 3(2)(b)(v a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be registered against the bail petitioners. Though, there is no mention, if any, with regard to cross-FIR alleged to have been lodged by the bail petitioners, but during proceedings of the case, this court also asked for record of cross-FIR, if any, filed by the bail petitioners. Investigating Officer disclosed that cross-FIR bearing No. 14 of 2019, came to be lodged against the complainant in the instant case on the complaint having been filed by one of the bail petitioners, namely Prit Pal on 26.1.2019, under Ss.147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station, Dharampur. He further informed that the accused named in that FIR have been already ordered to be enlarged on bail by the court below. Careful perusal of the record/ status report reveals that the alleged scuffle inter se parties took place on account of some land dispute, which is otherwise pending adjudication in civil court.

6. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners, strenuously argued that since the investigation stands completed and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, they can not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period during trial,. While referring to the record/ status report, Mr. Thakur made serious attempt to persuade this court to agree with his contention that no case, much less case under S.325 IPC is made out against the bail petitioners, because, there is no injury, which can