- (1.) As identical points to be determined for the grant of regular bail are involved in the indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts.
(2.) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the statement of complainant Rohit, which formed the basis of FIR, is that on 11.2.2011, his uncle's son Mohit, aged about 8-10 years took some wheat from the house and went to a shop. In the meantime, the complainant reached there and slapped him (Mohit). The accused stopped the complainant from slapping him. Some altercation ensued between them. According to the prosecution that thereafter the petitioners alongwith their main co-accused Radha Charan armed with stick, iron rod and sickle (Dranti), came there. Rajesh alias Pappu was stated to have put his hand on the mouth of the complainant, whereas the main accused Radha Charan gave the sickle blows on his (complainant) left hand finger and stomach and the remaining accused were claimed to have inflicted the other injuries with danda and iron rod. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, by means of FIR, bearing No.35 dated 2.3.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 307, 323 and 452 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Chhainsa, District Faridabad, in the manner described hereinbefore. The bail applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 3.11.2011 (Annexure P1)
(3.) Now the petitioners have preferred the instant petitions for the grant of regular bail, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that as a matter of fact that FIR No.37 dated 3.3.2011 was registered against complainant Rohit and his uncle Dhani, at the behest of petitioner Dharambir alias Billu for the commission of offences punishable under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 IPC. The complainant has lodged a cross case as a counter blast to the earlier case falsely implicating the petitioners.;