JUDGMENT

1. This is first application by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Applicants apprehending their arrest in ST No. 110/2016 (State of MP Vs. Bhagwat Singh and others) pending on the case file of ASJ Bareli, DistrictRaisen arising out of Crime No. 78/2016 of Police Station-Bareli, DistrictRaisen for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 325 of IPC have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail as learned ASJ Bareli District-Raisen has proceeded against them under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and has issued bailable warrant against them.

3. After issuance of bailable warrant by the ASJ, Bareli against the applicants for trying together with co-accused in the aforesaid Session trial, applicants moved an anticipatory bail application before the learned ASJ, Bareli in ST No. 110/2016 (State of MP Vs. Bhagwat Singh and others) but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that all these applicant are women. Sheela Bai is 56 years old, applicant No. 2 Jeera Bai is more than 60 years old and applicant No. 3 Chandrakunwar Bai is 46 years old. They have no criminal past. it is submitted that as per the prosecution case, FIR was lodged against co-accused and applicants by one Sushila Bai. But after investigation police did not file charge sheet against present applicants as their involvement in the commission of the offence was not found. Investigation of offence was done by an officer of Dy.SP rank. The police officials who on the basis of information received at dial 100 had reached on the spot, in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have clearly stated that applicants were not present on the spot at the time of incident. It is submitted that applicants and complainant are from the same family, they have blood relation. Counter FIR has also been registered against the complainant party and they are also facing criminal case before the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the judgment of Manohar Lal Saini and others Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in Criminal Revision No. 382/2014 vide order dated 02.12.2015 has submitted that if someone is impleaded as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Court should either issue summons or bailable warrant only, as the purpose of issuance of such process is mere the continuous appearance of the accused before the trial Court in the case pending. It is further submitted that no purpose would be served by sending the applicants/ladies in the jail as trial is pending. It is submitted that only allegation against the present applicants is that they all caused injuries to Shushila Bai but in medical examination, no injuries which could have been said to be grievous in nature or life threatening has been found on the person of Shushila Bai. No case under section 307 of IPC is made out against them. Applicants belongs to the respectable families, they are the victims of the rivalry between the families of two brothers. Learned counsel also referred the examination-in-chief of witnesses recorded before the trial Court and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. it is submitted that applicants are ready to abide by all the conditions whatsoever imposed by this Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

6. Per-contra, Shri Jayant Neekhra learned counsel for the objector and Shri Ramji Pandey learned G.A. for the respondent/State has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants and have submitted that applicants owe liability under Section 149 of the IPC as they were member of unlawful assembly. They have taken active part in the commission of offence. They have not only caused injuries to Shushila Bai but also prevented her from rescue her husband who was being assaulted by the other co-accused persons. It is further submit