JUDGMENT 1. - This application under S. 438 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners after it has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur vide his order, dated April 18, 1988. 2. Two reports were lodged at the same police station one by Sugan Singh on behalf of the party of the accused persons which is earlier in ti me and another by Chhiddi Singh, the complainant in this case. Sugan Singh in his report alleged that when his brother Shersingh went to the field along with tractor for bringing the harvested crop he saw that Chhiddi, Herdco, Bhoori, Diwan and Beeri were stealing and taking the crop on their heads. Shersingh challenged them and asked to leave the crop. Bhoori and Herdeo placed their bendloads on the ground and called Chhiddi and Chhiddi and others who were going ahead Chhiddi ran to his house and returned with a gun. Diwan and Beeri brought lathies from the field and these persons started attacking Sersingh, as result of which he sustained injury. Chhiddi fired at Shersingh but he managed to escape. It is stated that Shersingh returned home and informed the other members of the family. Crop worth Rs. 2000/- is alleged to have been stroller away. 3. According to the report of Chhiddi Singh all the accused-petitioners came in a tractor along with a trolly to their field and started collecting the harvested crop lying in their field. He called his sons and all the three asked them not to do so but the accused persons did not listen to them and on the contrary they started beating them with lathies which the accused persons had brought in the trolly They also stated that Shersingh and Sugan all had 12 bore guns which they fired in the air. Diwan Singh and Beeri Singh who sustained severe injuries were alleged to have been admitted to hospital. Cases for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 379 IPC were registered on both the sides except that on Chhaddis report section 447 IPC was also added. Accused persons apprehending their arrest moved bail application under S. 438 Cr. P.C. which has been rejected, hence this application. 4. On the side of Shersingh and others, Shersingh is injured who has sustained five injuries by blunt object on his person but none of these injuries is on vital part. Accused persons apprehending their arrest moved bail application under S. 438 Cr. P.C. which has been rejected, hence this application. 4. On the side of Shersingh and others, Shersingh is injured who has sustained five injuries by blunt object on his person but none of these injuries is on vital part. On the side of Chhiddi injuries have been sustained by Chhiddi, multiple injuries by Herdeo Singh and two by Baldeo Singh. Since there had been cross cases I thought it proper to call the diary of both the cases. Since both the parties levelled allegations against each other and both claimed the crop to be their. However the name of the field has been same. I also intended to see as to in whose field there are marks of violence and even in the report lodged by Sugan Singh, the investigating officer did not find any marks of violence in their field and the investigation shows that it was Chhiddi Singhs crop which was sought to be removed on which the incident took place. It is also borne out from the record that case under section 447 IPC has been registered against the accused party and it prima facie appears that they entered the field for removal of the crop. F.R. has also been given in the report lodged by Sugan Singh and, therefore, in normal course no indulgence should have been shown to the accused-petitioners in this case but I find also from the record that the investigating officer had released Shersingh and Sugan Singh on their personal bonds on February 11, 1988 i e., much after the report has been lodged by Chhiddi Singh and, therefore if he wanted to detain them nobody prevented him to do so at that point of time. Since no grievous injury has been received by anybody and also that recovery can even be made after the petitioners are released on bail under S 438 Cr. P.C. and the only non-bailable offence is under section 379 IPC coupled with the fact that I find the story exaggerated also, I intend to issue directions in favour of the petitioners. 5. P.C. and the only non-bailable offence is under section 379 IPC coupled with the fact that I find the story exaggerated also, I intend to issue directions in favour of the petitioners. 5. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, police station Kumher in F.I.R. No. 35/88 is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners, Rajendra Singh, Sher Singh, Sugan Singh Bhupendra Singh, Surendra Singh and Bachchu Singh, they be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions. 6. One of the conditions of the bond shall be that in case any of the accused tries to over awe and intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any other manner or repeats a similar offence of beating, trespass or theft it would be open to the trial court to cancel the bail application after notice to them without reference to this court. *******