JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

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

2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. It is a case of version or cross-version. Initially, the police had reached the spot and on the basis of complaint filed against the petitioner which is registered in FIR (Annexure P-1) which reads as follows:

4. After recording of the statement, the investigator had arrested some of the accused and came to know that petitioner -Harmanjit Singh had been taken to Civil Hospital, Payal. On reaching there, petitioner- Harmanjit Singh made a statement to the investigator, based on which, DDR No.20 was recorded (Annexure P-2), which reads as follows:

5. Since the petitioner was under treatment, the investigator in their wisdom decided not to arrest him. After that, the petitioner apprehended arrest and had filed an anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was dismissed and subsequently, the petitioner came up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was admitted in hospital on 17.03.2024 at 09.20 P.M. and he has joined the investigation on 15/21.06.2024 and surrendered his weapons. His further argument based upon para 8 of the petition is that it is a text book illustration of false implication and the investigator has seen the circumstances with a jaundiced eye. He further argued that the case is triable by the Magistrate and the petitioner is a first offender, as such, he is entitled to bail. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. He further argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

7. State counsel opposes the bail and has referred to reply dated 11.07.2024 and relevant portion of the same reads as follows:

8. An analysis of the above said arguments would lead to the following conclusion. Although, there is sufficient evidence that the petitioner had visited the shop of the complainant in dilapidated condition and has also called his other accomplices but he was very much available in the Civil Hospital on the date when the investigator decided not to arrest him. Even, this fact was in the notice of the supervisory officers, who also did not arrest him. Simply because the petitioner was in hospital was not a reason not to arrest him if they wanted to arrest him. It's a case of version and cross-version and at this stage, it is difficult to infer that who was the aggressor and at whose instance the occurrence had started.

9. On primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, injuries inflicted by the petitioner, and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 3 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

10. 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