IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that anticipatory bail must be granted based on a careful consideration of the nature of the accusations, the roles of the accused, and the need for a fair investigation, balancing the rights of the accused against the interests of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The petitioners, through the medium of the instant bail application, are seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest in case FIR No. 0002/2021 for offences under Sections 307, 341, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and 4 & 25 of Arms Act registered with Police Station, Surankote, District, Poonch.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant bail application are that the complainant, namely, Mir Mohammad lodged a written report to Police Station, Surankote to the effect that the petitioners are having a long standing dispute with the complainant party over a piece of land and that with a criminal intention to kill the complainant as well as his family members, the petitioners wrongfully restrained his son, Altaf Hussain on 03.01.2021 at 9:00 a.m, attacked him with a knife and inflicted serious injuries upon him. It was further alleged that on hearing hue and cry of the injured person, the other family members of the complainant rushed to the spot for rescuing the injured, but all the assailants gave a severe beating to them and it was only with the aid and assistance of some people who gathered over there that they were saved from the clutches of the accused. It was further alleged that besides Altaf Hussain, daughter-in-law of complainant, Rasila Begum and his grandson, Asif Altaf also received injuries during the occurrence. After registration of the FIR, the Police swung into action and started investigation of the case. The aforesaid offences are stated to have been found established against the petitioners.

3. It has been contended by the petitioners that they are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR on account of previous enmity over a property between the petitioners and the complainant party. It is also stated that the injured, Altaf Hussain, who is an old person, was advised surgery and that he is likely to be discharged from the Hospital. It is further averred that the petitioners No. 1 to 3 are women, whereas the petitioner No. 4 and 5 are senior citizens and as such, they deserve the concession of bail. The petitioners undertake to abide by the conditions of bail that may be imposed upon them by this Court and they also undertake to co-operate with the investigating agency in case they are admitted to bail.

4. Vide order dated 22.01.2021 passed by this Court, the petitioners were admitted to ad interim anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions and the said order has been extended from time to time.

5. The bail application has been resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as by respondent No.2, the complainant by filing response to the same.

6. Respondent-State in its objections has submitted that the petitioners have committed a heinous crime and that they are not entitled to concession of bail. It has been further contended that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered for which custodial interrogation of accused is necessary. It is also averred that one of the accused is still absconding and that injured, namely, Altaf Hussain has received serious injuries and he continues to be under treatment at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMC&H), Jammu. It is further stated that during the investigation of the case, statements of some of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded and the statements of certain other witnesses under section 164 Cr.P.C. have also been recorded. It has been urged in the objections that after the grant of the interim anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners, the inquiry regarding weapon of offence was made from the petitioner, namely, Mohd. Akram, but he has not co-operated. It is further contended that without the arrest of main accused, namely, Mohd. Akram recovery of weapon of offence is not possible. Investigation is stated to be in progress and the statements of some more witnesses are yet to be recorded.

7. Respondent No.2-the injured has also filed his objections to the bail a