JUDGMENT 1. - These two petitions have been filed by the accused petitioners seeking their pre-arrest bail under section- 438 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Crime No. 611/91 was registered at police station Karauli under Sections-147, 148, 149, 447, 436, 427 and 307 Indian Penal Code. on 28-12-1991 on the report lodged by Atar Singh S/o Swaroop Singh. 3. The prosecution case, as per the report, is that in village Gopalpura the land bearing Khasra No. 339/2 is situated and it was purchased by registered sale-deed by Sumer Singh, who is the real brother of the informant. It was also stated that on the said land they had constructed a pator which was being used for residence and several household articles and cushions were lying there. It is alleged that on the day of incident, an assembly of 150-200 persons came there and demolished the pator, set fire to the building and articles which were lying there and also assaulted Mohar Singh and Bhambho. In the said incident, Bhambho had sustained seven injuries and Mohar Singh had sustained 15 injuries. On X-Ray examination, it was found that Bhambho had sustained fractures of both bones radius and ulna,lower ⅔rd portion and fracture of upper ⅔rd of left ulna and a fracture of wrist. Similarly, Mohar Singh had sustained a number of injuries including a fracture of frontal bone of skull. 4. 13-accused persons had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which was registered as S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Appl. No. 318/1992. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court was pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the co-accused Dhan Singh S/o Bhola, Shivanarain S/o Gopalya, Hatila S/o Sukhlal, Gangolya S/o Suknlal and Ram Prasad S/o Bhola. The bail application of the rest of the accused persons, against whom there was specific allegation in the statement of the injured witnesses, was rejected vide order dated 3-2-1992. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the accused persons belonged to different villages and an attempt has been made by the Complainant party to implicate as many as persons as they could. It was also argued that the land in question was a pasture land. 6. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the accused persons belonged to different villages and an attempt has been made by the Complainant party to implicate as many as persons as they could. It was also argued that the land in question was a pasture land. 6. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Complainant argued that the accused-persons first held a meeting and, thereafter, they made a concentrated riotous attack taking the law in their hands. It was also submitted that the Pator of the Complainant party was totally demolished, the articles lying in the pator were burnt and badly injured Mohar Singh and Bhambho causing several injuries by blunt, as well as, sharp edged weapon. They also read-out the statements of the two injured persons, namely, Mohar Singh and Bhambho and submitted that the bail application should be rejected on the reasoning given by this Court in the order dated 3-2-1992. 7. I have perused the entire case diary, as well as, the statements of the injured eye witnesses. From the record, it appears that the land in question was purchased by Alar Singh, Sumer Singh S/o Swaroop Singh for valuable consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The sale-deed is a registered one. It also appears that mutation of the land in question lias also been affected in the name of the Complainant party. It is further born-out from the record that an assembly of larger persons made a concentrated attack demolishing the pator setting fire to the articles and giving merciless beating to Mohar Singh and Bhambho. 8. Applying the principle laid down by this court in the aforesaid order, none of the petitioners in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 596/92, namely, Ram Singh S/o Prasadi, Narsi S/o Dhan Singh, Ramphool S/o Ghantoli, Shankar S/o Hathila and Poonia S/o Ramhet deserves to be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail under section-438 Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, the said application is rejected. 9. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 699/92, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners - Moolchand S/o Johari, Kalua S/o Basanta, Girraj S/o Tunda, Uarbhan S/o Bhola and Moli S/o Sukhpal, and as such, they are entitled to be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section-438 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police station-Karauli, Distt. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 699/92, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners - Moolchand S/o Johari, Kalua S/o Basanta, Girraj S/o Tunda, Uarbhan S/o Bhola and Moli S/o Sukhpal, and as such, they are entitled to be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section-438 Criminal Procedure Code. 10. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police station-Karauli, Distt. Sawaimadhopur in F.I.R. No. 611/1991 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners - Moolchand S/o Johari, Kalua S/o Basanta, Girraj S/o Tunda, Harbhan S/o Bhola and Moti S/o Sukhpal, they be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall nor directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any other police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. 11. The bail application of other accused-petitioners, namely, Bajranga, Roop Singh, Dharm Singh, Munshi, Ram Sahai, Nathua, Umed, Dhan Singh, Kalyan and Charan is rejected.Order accordingly. *******