JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioners, namely, Vinod, Rajender and Vicky for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.135/19 dated 1.7.2019, under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC, registered at police Station, Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Sequel to orders dated 24th/29th July, 2019, HC Kishore Kumar, has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record fresh status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report, reveals that on 1.7.2019, complainant Vikas lodged a complaint at police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that on 30.6.2019, at about 10:30 PM, when he had come to cart road for purchasing Ice cream, persons namely, Karan and Suraj stopped him and extended threats. He further alleged that after having heard noise, his younger brother Vikrant also came on the spot. On seeing his brother Vikrant, Karan and Suraj fled away from the spot at that moment, but subsequently they came alongwith persons namely, Raju, Karan, Suraj, Rahul, Vicky and Vinod and gave merciless beatings to him as well as his brother with the help of beer bottle and chopper, as a result of which, they suffered serious injuries. Allegedly, the bail petitioners before this Court also gave beatings to the persons namely, Bunty and Vipin, who had come to the spot to rescue Vikas and his brother Vikrant. Police got the complainant medically examined at DDU Hospital, Shimla and subsequently on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, lodged formal FIR, as has been taken note hereinabove, against the bail petitioners under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC. Bail petitioners are behind the bars since 1st July, 2019. Co-accused Suraj, who earlier absconded, has been already granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5th August, 2019.

4. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General though on the instructions of Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly admitted that investigation in the case is complete, but contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioners, they do not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer for grant of bail made on behalf of the bail petitioners may be rejected out rightly. He further contended that record reveals that all the bail petitioners are habitual offender and in past numerous cases have been registered against them. He further contended that in the event of petitioners' being enlarged on bail, they may not only flee from justice, rather they may tamper with the prosecution evidence or dissuade the prosecution witnesses from deposing against them.

5. Mr. N.K.Thakur, learned Senior counsel representing the bail petitioners while inviting attention of this Court to the medical opinion rendered on record by the Medical Officer, contended that no case much less under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the bail petitioners. Mr. Thakur, further contended that it is apparent from the record that cross FIR's came to be lodged against each other because in the alleged incident bail petitioners also suffered grievous as well as simple injuries. Mr. Thakur, further contended that as per own story of the prosecution, no evidence with regard to use of blunt weapon such as sword, chopper and Khokhari came to be established and as such, bail petitioners, who are behinds the bars for more than 1= months deserve to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that during investigation complainant as well as bail petitioners have entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably in