The main legal point established is that in cases of free fights and lack of specific attribution, the individual role of the accused must be carefully evaluated, and the applicability of specific legal provisions should be considered at trial.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Singh Sangwan J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.58 dated 17.05.2021, registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323, 324, 427, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has relied upon the order dated 16.11.2021, vide which the co-accused of the petitioner namely Paramjit Singh, was granted the concession of regular bail in CRM-M No.44718 of 2021. The operative part of the said order, reads as under:-

“Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations in the FIR registered at the instance of SI Nirmal Singh, on receiving an information from the control room that there is a land dispute in village Cheema Kalan between Dhara Singh’s party, who is trying to plough the land and Charan Singh’s party, who is trying to stop ploughing the land and a mutual fight has taken place in which bullets are being fired from both the sides. On receiving the information, he along with co-officials, reached the village and found that Dhara Singh, his sons Salwinder Singh, Jugraj Singh, Angrej Singh, along with 25-30 unknown persons, armed with guns, pistols, swords and other sharp edged weapons were present and Rashpal Singh was ploughing the land with his tractor. The second party Charan Singh, along with his sons Surjit Singh, Ranjit Singh, his brother Dilbagh Singh, Gandhi Singh, Sarwan Singh, Dharam Singh, Jagjit Singh and petitioner- Paramjit Singh and 10-12 unknown persons armed with .12 bore pistol, sword and sharp edged weapons were mutually fighting regarding ploughing or stopping the ploughing of the land and were firing bullets on each other.

On seeing the police party, all these persons sped away from the spot. Persons from both the sides suffered bullets and sharp edged weapons injuries and their relatives have taken them to different hospitals. In presence of complainant Dhara Singh, Salwinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh, who were having injury marks and from the second party Surjit Singh, Sarwan Singh, Jagjit Singh, Paramjit Singh and Baljit Singh were also having injury mark and blood was oozing out, were taken to the hospital. When he reached the hospital to record the statement, the doctor opined that Dhara Singh’s party is unfit to make statement and no MLR of the second party was received and FIR under Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, on 22.5.2021, the crossversion on the statement of Surjit Singh vide GD No. 27 was registered against the Dhara Singh’s party. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the cross-version the details of the injuries sustained by Surjit Singh and others were recorded. Later on, Dhara Singh died and Section 302 IPC was added.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, 16 persons, including the petitioner, have been nominated, whereas in the cross-version, 12 persons, including Dhara Singh were nominated.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the arrest of certain accused persons from both the sides, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been submitted.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a perusal of the FIR as well as the subsequent investigation revealed that it was a case of free fight over the possession of the agricultural land, wherein the Dhara Singh’s side (in the FIR case) was trying to plough the land, whereas the petitioner (petitioner’s side) (cross version) they were trying to prevent them as stated in the GD that the petitioner’s side had purchased 27 kanals 04 marlas of land from one Maninder Raj Singh and Dhara Singh and others, who belong to his family tried to take forcible possession though the previous wheat crop was harvested by the petitioner’s side.

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the re