JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the complainant party has already been released on bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge himself in a case registered at the instance of the accused persons for the same incident. Under these circumstances the petitioners are also entitled to give similar treatment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner today referred a copy of Khasra Girdhawari for the disputed Khasra Number wherein accused Bhonriya, Har Narain, Kishan Lal S/o Gangji have been shown as Khatedar tenant of land and the pass book which has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for perusal shows the same entry with regard to the Khatedari of land. Learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the bail application stated in its order that circle Patwari has stated that the land in dispute is in the possession of the complainant party. During the course of arguments learned P.P. failed to show any record in order to support the aforesaid statement of the circle patwari. I am of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge should not have acted upon on the oral statement of patwari and while deciding the serious question of possession he could have asked for the relevant record from the prosecution side and without that he could not have given any finding or observation with regard to the possession of the disputed land. At this stage learned P.P. failed to controvert the revenue record produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for perusal. It has not been disputed that accused party sustained injuries and no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the complainant party as to how the accused persons sustained injuries. The case of both the parties is that the incident took place due to possession of the land bearing Khasra Number 2/1/1. At this stage, I do not want to express any opinion as to who was the rightful claimant of the land but looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case I am fully satisfied that this is a case where powers under Section 438 Cr. P.C. should be exercised in favour of the accused petitioner. This bail application, is, therefore, allowed. 2. P.C. should be exercised in favour of the accused petitioner. This bail application, is, therefore, allowed. 2. The S.H.O./Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, Police Station, Bonli District Sawai Madhour in F.I.R. No. 32/89 is therefore directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners, 1. Bhonriya 2. Har Narain 3. Kishan Lal 4. Ram Sahai 5. Badri 6. Girraj 7. Kanhiya 8. Vishram 9. Kajod 10. Lallu 11. Harpal 12. Dhullya 13. Ram Karan and 14. Ramji Lal, they be released on bail, provided each of them furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with are (one) surety in the like amount to his satisfaction, on the following conditions : 1. That the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. 2. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and 3. That the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Bail granted. *******