Sat Pal ( 1 ) THESE two petitions have been filed under Section 439of Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the petitioners on bail. Cr. M (M)247/93 has been filed by accused Maninder Singh @ Picky and Crl. M (M)339/93 has been filed by accused Praveen Gore @ Bittu. Since both thepetitioners were arrested in connection with the same case FIR No. 292dated 10/11/1992 P. S. Sarai Rohilla, I am disposing of both thepetitions by a common order. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the abovementionedfir. was registered at the instance of one Rajesh Kumar. According to thesaid complainant, on 10/11/1992 he and other members of Ektacricket Club were playing cricket in Gymkhana Ground, New Delhi whenthey were stopped by boys of Inborn Cricketers Club. At about 12. 00 noon,the complainant went to the office of I. O. W. for drinking water from thetap where he exchanged some hot words with the brother of accusedmaninder Singh. When he went back to the ground, Maninder s brothercalled the boys of Inborn Cricketers Club and pointing towards complainantsaid that he quarelled with him. At this both the petitioners alongwithco-accused Manjit and Jaipal came there and exhorted "catch bold of him". It is alleged that accused Jaipal who was holding a wicket in his hand gaveone blow on the head of the complainant and accus Praveen Gore whowas carrying bat also beat the complainant. On seeing the complainantbeing beaten, Alok Kumar (deceased) who belonged to the team of the complainant came to rescue him. Then accused Manjit and Maninder Singh@ Picky said that he should also be beaten. It is further alleged that Manjit,picky (Maninder Singh) and Bittu (Parveen Gore) who were parrying intheir hands wicket and bat started beating Alok. Meanwhile. the complainant started bleeding in his head. I Thereafter I accused Jaipal startedbeating Alok Kumar who fell down unconscious Alok was taken tor. L. M. L. Hospital and the complainant also reached the hospital. On11. 11. 92 Alok scummbed to his injury. ( 3 ) AS per M. L. C. , the injury on the person of the complainant wassimple caused with a blunt object. The post-mortem report of the deceasedalok indicates that "the scalp showed massive effusion and clotted bloodall over skull. . . . . . . . . . . . brain also showed massive sub-dural clot all over thebrain surface. The post-mortem report of the deceasedalok indicates that "the scalp showed massive effusion and clotted bloodall over skull. . . . . . . . . . . . brain also showed massive sub-dural clot all over thebrain surface. " The cause of death in terms of the said report is :- "the injury over skull anti-mortem caused by blunt object. Death in this case in my opinion is due to coma resulting fromhead injury. " ( 4 ) MR. Grover the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Maninder Singh @ Picky drew my attention to the statement of complainant dated 10/11/1992 and his supplementary statement ofthe same date and also to the statements of the two other eye witnesses,namely, vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar. Referring to these statements,he submitted that these statements show that the accused Maninder Singhtried to hit the deceased with his wicket but the same could not hit him. He further submitted that the Medical Examination of the complainantshows that the injury on his body was simple. He also REFERRED TO to thepost-mortem report of the deceased and submitted that there was only oneinjury on the head and since there was no enimity between the petitionerand the deceased, it could be at the most a case under Section 304 Part-IIbut could not be a case under Section 302 IPC. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR 1982 SC 55 ; Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983sc 185, and Gulab Singh v. Slate of Rajasthan, 1975 Crl. L. J. 695. ( 5 ) AS regards the allegation of exhortation made by the complainantagainst accused Maninder Singh, the learned Counsel submitted that this wasa false allegation as the same has not been corroborated by the other twoeye witnesses. He further contended that the evidence of exhortation wasa weak piece of evidence and no conviction can be recorded on such evidence. In support of this contention he placed reliance on two Supremecourt judgments reported in the case of Jainul Haque v. State of Bihar, air 1974 SC 45 and Dajya Moshya Bhil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984sc 171. He further contended that the evidence of exhortation wasa weak piece of evidence and no conviction can be recorded on such evidence. In support of this contention he placed reliance on two Supremecourt judgments reported in the case of Jainul Haque v. State of Bihar, air 1974 SC 45 and Dajya Moshya Bhil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984sc 171. ( 6 ) LASTLY, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was awell known cricketer and has been married recently and is on interimbail at present and as such the petitioner should be released on regularbail. ( 7 ) MR. Khan. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accusedparveen Gore @ Bittu reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Grover, thelearned Counsel for the accused Maninder Singh. He further submittedthat the post-mortem report does not indicate that the injury inflicted onthe deceased was sufficient to cause death. He also submitted that there wasno dispute prior to the incident and as per allegations, the appearance ofalok Kumar (deceased) on the scene was not known to the accusad beforehis arrival. Further according to the learned Counsel, there was no intention on the part of the accused to murder Alok Kumar. He also submittedthat there was single injury on the body of the deceased. In view of thesesubmissions, he contended that no case is made out against the petitionersunder Section 302 Indian Penal Code and at the most it could be a case under Section304 Part-11 IPC. in support of his contention, he placed reliance on twojudgments reported in the case of Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982crl. L. J. 1946 and Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu. AIR 1984 SC 759 . ( 8 ) MR. Sharma. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of thestate in the case of Maninder Singh submitted that before the deceasedappeared on the scene, the enmity between the group to which he belongedand the other group to which the accused belonged had come on the surface. He also submitted that as per the statement of the complainant, accusedmaninder (Picky), accused Manjit. and accused Bittu started beating thedeceased with the wickets and bats which they were carrying in their hands. He also submitted that as per the statement of the complainant, accusedmaninder (Picky), accused Manjit. and accused Bittu started beating thedeceased with the wickets and bats which they were carrying in their hands. He also submitted that the post-mortem report does not indicate thatthere was only one injury it showed that there were injuries on the headbecause there was massive effusion and clotted blood all over the skullhe, therefore, submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the offence,petitioner is not entitled to bail. ( 9 ) MR. Sawhney, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of thestate in the case of Parveen Gore @ Bittu submitted that the said accusedhad reinforced the blow with tile bat on the vital part of the body of thedeceased i. e. head and the cause of the death was the head injury as statedin the post mortem report. He, therefore, submitted that it was a clearcase under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and as such the petitioner was not entitled tobail. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel also drew my attention to DD No. 14-Adated 28. 12. 92 and DD No. 16-A dated 3/01/1993 recorded atpolice Station Sarai Rohilla, at the instance of complainant Rajesh Kumar. In DD No. 14-A, it has been alleged that 3/4 Sikh boys met the complainanton 28. 12. 92 and told him that in case the complainant created any hinderance in the bail application in the above mentioned case, he will betaught a lesson and they also told him that he should inform his othercompanions also about this. In DDNo. 16-A. , it has been stated by thecomplainant that at about 3. 00 PM on 3/01/1993 he was standingoutside his house when 3/4 Sikh boys told him that the bail application wasfixed for the next day and in case he tried to create any hinderance orbriefed any advocate, it will not be good for him and after giving thesethreats those boys went in a car though he could not note down the numberof the Car. I may point out here that Shri Amardeep Sehgal, SI. PS. Sarairohilla, who is the I. O. in this case was present in the Court, in reply tospecific question from me as to whether any action was taken on thesereports, submitted that since the names and particulars of the said Sikhboys were not given, no further action was taken on these reports. PS. Sarairohilla, who is the I. O. in this case was present in the Court, in reply tospecific question from me as to whether any action was taken on thesereports, submitted that since the names and particulars of the said Sikhboys were not given, no further action was taken on these reports. ( 11 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of thecase and have perused the statements of the three alleged eve witnessesfrom these statements it if clear that when the deceased Alok Kumar whobelonged to the team of the complainant Rajesh Kumar came to rescuehim, the petitioners and the other accused were beating the complainantwith bat/wicket. All the three said witnesses have also stated that accusedmanjit and Parveen Gore had hit the head of the deceased with their bats. In his supplementary statement, the complainant has also alleged that Manjitand Parveen Gore intentionally hit Alok with intent to murder him. ( 12 ) FROM the post-mortem report, I find that the cause of the deathwas due to coma resulting from head injury. The said report further showsthat there was massive effusion and clotted blood all over the skull andbrain also showed massive sub-dural clot all over the brain surface. Inview of these facts mentioned in the post-mortem report, I would notexpress any opinion at this stage as to whether the offence alleged to havebeen committed in the present case falls under Section 302 Indian Penal Code or 304part-11 IPC. However, in view of the allegations made against the Parveengore by all the three eye witnesses that he alongwith Manjit had hit thehead of the deceased with a bat and the cause of the death is also as aresult of head injury, I am of the view that the petitioner Parveen Gore @bittu is not entitled to bail at this stage, particularly when the doctor whoconducted the post mortem is yet to be examined. Accordingly his bailpetition is dismissed. ( 13 ) AS regards the petition of Maninder Singh @ Picky, two eyewitnesses, namely, Vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar have stated in theirstatement that he tried to hit the deceased with his wicket but thesame could not hit him and from these statements it is also not clear whichpart of the body of the deceased he tried to hit. ( 13 ) AS regards the petition of Maninder Singh @ Picky, two eyewitnesses, namely, Vinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar have stated in theirstatement that he tried to hit the deceased with his wicket but thesame could not hit him and from these statements it is also not clear whichpart of the body of the deceased he tried to hit. The complainant thoughin his initial statement had named the petitioner also as one of the threepersons who started heating Alok Kumar (deceased) but in his supplementarystatement recorded on the same date, he made it clear, that accused Maninder Singh had made only an effort to hit Alok with a wicket. He has alsonot mentioned as to which part of the body he tried to hit the deceased. Further as regards the exhortation, as per the statement of the eye witnessesvinod Kumar and Ashok Kumar it was Jaipal who first hit on the hips ofalok Kumar with the wicket and then exhorted that he be finished. Thecomplainant has, however, mentioned that Manjeet and Picky (Manindersingh) had said that Alok Kumar should be beaten. The exhortationassigned to Maninder Singh is only of beating and not of finishing thedeceased. ( 14 ) IN view of the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, Iwas inclined to pass an order for release of accused Maninder Singh on bail. However, in view of the two complaints lodged by the complainant Rajeshkumar (who is an eve witness) mentioned in DD No. 14-A, dated 28thdec. 1992 and DD No. 16-A dated 3rd Jan, 1993 I am not passing theorder for release of the said accused on regular bail till the investigationin respect of these two complaints is completed by the Police. As statedearlier, the I. O , submitted that no action was taken on these complaints. I am. however, of the opinion that 1. 0. should have investigated the matteron receipt of the complaints. I, therefore, direct the S. H. O. . P. S. Sarairohilla to investigate the matter alleged in these two complaints and areport thereof be submitted to his Court within four weeks. Accordingly. the petition pertaining to accused Maninder Singh @ Picky is adjournedto 3rd May, 1993. In the mthe meanwhile, the interim bail granted to theaccused by the Sessions Court is extended till the next date of hearing onthe same terms and conditions. ( 15 ) IN the result Crl. Accordingly. the petition pertaining to accused Maninder Singh @ Picky is adjournedto 3rd May, 1993. In the mthe meanwhile, the interim bail granted to theaccused by the Sessions Court is extended till the next date of hearing onthe same terms and conditions. ( 15 ) IN the result Crl. M (M) 339/93 filed by Parveen Gore @ Bittuis dismissed and Crl. M (M) 247/93 filed by Maninder Singh @ Picky is adjourned to 3/05/1993. ( 16 ) THE observations given by me hereinabove will have no bearingon the merits of the case. ( 17 ) A copy of this order be sent to S. H. O. , P. S. Sarai Rohilla forcompliance.