The court considered the nature of allegations, injuries inflicted, and other factors peculiar to the case, and imposed stringent conditions to ensure the safety of the witnesses and the victim.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of accompanying one Kapil Sharma alias Mani Pandit, have come up before this Court by filing second application under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that 'No such or similar FIR is registered/pending against the petitioners.'

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially, the petitioners had filed a similar application for anticipatory bail on behalf of both the accused. Vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed in CRM-M-40984-2022, this Court had dismissed the bail application. After that, the petitioners had filed CRM-43305-2022 in CRM-M-40984-2022 seeking recalling of the order on the grounds that they were entitled to bail on parity with co-accused, who had already been granted bail prior to the dismissal of the petition. Vide order dated 18.11.2022, this Court had passed the order and the same reads as follows:

'The present application has been filed seeking recalling of the order dated 09.09.2022. A perusal of the application reveals that petitioner seeking recalling on parity. However, given the instructions imposed under Section 362 Cr.P.C, this application is not maintainable as such stands dismissed.

However, liberty reserved to the applicant-petitioner to file fresh application for bail under Section 438 CR.P.C on the ground of parity and in such application, the petitioner shall specifically annexed all the orders through which he seeks parity.

It is clarified that dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way in case second bail application is filed.

It is further clarified that if the petitioner file fresh application for anticipatory bail, the observation made in the order dated 09.09.2022 shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the same'.

4. While opposing the bail, State counsel does not dispute the fact that while rejecting the bail on 09.09.2022, this Court had considered the fact that the accused had fired gun shots whereas persons who had been granted bail had not fired the gun shots. State also does not dispute the fact that the person, who had fired gunshot was also called by the name Mani whereas name of the petitioner is Manni Singh, thus there was a confusion regarding the name of petitioner Manni Singh with Mani @Kapil Sharma, who had fired the gun shots.

5. As revealed through Annexure P-6, the said Kapil Sharma @ Mani Pandit had filed his bail application and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2021 passed in CRM-M-27444-2020.

6. Given above, there is no dispute that while deciding the bail application of Manni Singh, it was not pointed out to the Court that Manni, who had fired gun shots was Kapil Sharma @ Mani Pandit and not the petitioner Manni Singh and his associate Baljeet Singh.

7. Vide order dated 28.02.2022 passed in CRM-M-47082-2021, this Court had granted bail to one of the similarly situated accused namely Sandeep Sharma, who had even a criminal history. It has not been argued by the State that the said order was assailed or reversed by the Supreme Court. While granting bail in Sandeep Sharma although one of the factors was that the parties had entered into an out of Court

Panchayati compromise and there were cross-cases and both were settled as per the said compromise. It would be relevant to refer to para 6 of the aforesaid order which reads as follows:

The parties have entered into an out of court panchayati compromise per which there were cross-cases and both cases have been settled. Whether such compromise contains sufficient averments for quashing of FIRs is not an issue at this stage.