The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a balanced approach in granting bail, the discretion of the judge in imposing stringent conditions, and the importance of addressing concerns related to influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In Para 9 of the bail petition, the petitioners declare no criminal history. The petitioners did not disclose criminal antecedents in the petition; however, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners states on instruction that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contend that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family.

4. On instructions from ASI Jagtar Singh, learned State counsel opposed the bail.

REASONING:

5. The complainant alleged that when he was going on his bike then the accused persons attacked him and gave him beatings including his head. He attributed injuries upon all the accused persons. Undoubtedly the nature of allegations are serious however the accused has controverted the allegations in para Nos. 4 & 5 of the bail petition. Without going into merits of the rival contentions and considering the nature of allegations in the entirety, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the conditions mentioned herein.

6. Furthermore, the petitioners are first offenders and thus deserves an opportunity to course correct.

7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitionerswho seek enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioners to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of