Judgment R. C. Kathuria, J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of both the applications for anticipatory bail titled Madan Lal and another V/s. State of Haryana and Gurdeep Singh and another V/s. State of Haryana bearing Cri. Misc. Nos.44505-M of 2001 and 45338-M of 2001 respectively, as these have arisen out of the same FIR No.207 dated 26.9.2001 at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case was registered on the statement of Sunekh Chander. As per his version, he was running a cycle repair shop near the Chand pur Gurdwara, Yamuna Nagar. His father Madan Lal has been running a grocery shop located nearby. On 26.9.2001 at about 7 P. M. he was at his shop. At that time, one Tata 407 vehicle came from the side of Grover depot and stopped in front of his shop. Joginder Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Rocky, Babloo, Babloos brother Palu and Paluts father came out of that vehicle, Joginder Singh and Gurdeep Singh were armed with swords, Rocky was carrying a lathi and Babloo was having iron rod with him. Soon after, Joginder Singh attacked the complainant with his sword and he tried to ward off the attack by raising his hand. Gurdeep Singh also inflicted a sword blow on his left leg. The other accused gave fist and slap blows to him. On the alarm raised by him, Madan Lal arrived, Joginder Singh attacked his father Madan Lal with kirpan. Thereafter, all the above named persons left the spot with their weapons. Both injured were taken to General Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. 3. During the course of investigation, cross version had been recorded at the instance of Gurdeep Singh. According to him he was having a Transport Company at Yamuna Nagar. On 26.9.2001 at about 7 P. M. he returned to his house after finishing his work at transport company when he noticed a quarrel going on in front of his house, at the shop of Sunekh Chander. Sunekh Chander, Davinder @ Bobby; Dharambir Dona and Chotta and Madan Lal father of Sunekh Chander were beating Joginder Singh. At that time Sunekh Chander was armed with a kirpan and Madan Lal was carrying an iron rod, Dharambir Dona was carrying a sword, Chotta and Bobby were unarmed. When Gurdeep Singh tried to rescue Joginder Singh, Sunekh Chander attacked him with his sword which gave injuries on his left arm. At that time Sunekh Chander was armed with a kirpan and Madan Lal was carrying an iron rod, Dharambir Dona was carrying a sword, Chotta and Bobby were unarmed. When Gurdeep Singh tried to rescue Joginder Singh, Sunekh Chander attacked him with his sword which gave injuries on his left arm. Thereafter, Dharmabir also caused injuries with kirpan on the finger of his right hand. Madan Lal inflicted injuries with his iron rod on the stomach and back. In the meantime, Jogga Singh son of uncle of the complainant also came there, who was attacked by Sunekh Chander with his sword and injury was caused on his right arm. On the alarm raised by them, Bhupinder Singh and Rajinder Singh arrived at the spot and rescued them. The case is still under investigation. 4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner accused Madan Lal and Sunekh Chander in Criminal Misc. No.44505-M of 2001 while pressing for their bail contended before me that because of the injury caused by Devinder Singh the middle finger of right hand of complainant Sunekh Chander had been completely chopped off and even as per attribution made by Gurdeep Singh accused, only simple injuries are stated to have been cause by Sunekh Chander. With regard to Madan Lal, it was contended by the learned counsel that he too had suffered kirpan injuries at the hand of Joginder Singh, one on the left wrist joint and another injury on the right wrist joint, which had been declared simple. As pel attribution made in the version of Gurdeep Singh recorded by the police, Madan Lal is stated to have caused injuries on the stomach and back of Gurdeep Singh which injuries have been declared simple in nature. Further, it has been contended that it being a case of cross version and in view of the grievous injuries suffered by Sunekh Chander, they may be extended the benefit of bail. 5. The counsel representing Gurdeep Singh and Joginder Singh in case bearing Criminal Misc. No.45338-M of 2001, has stated that Gurdeep Singh had suffered injuries at the hand of Sunekh Chander, who had inflicted injuries with sword on his right arm as per version recorded by Gurdeep Singh and the injury attributed by Sunekh Chander in the report lodged by him with the police have to be evaluated alongwith the version of the complainant Gurdeep Singh. Same plea was taken in respect of Joginder Singh accused because as per version of Gurdeep Singh, Sunekh Chander, his brother Devinder Singh Bobby, Dharambir and Choota were giving beatings to Joginder Singh. As per medico legal report, four injuries were suffered by Joginder Singh, which had been declared as simple in nature. 6. It has also come on the record that initially Dharambir was attributed to have caused injuries to Gurdeep Singh with kirpan, which hit him on the right arm. Initially medico legal report noted two injuries on his person, out of which one injury was incised wound on the left wrist joint and another injury was a blunt injury on the right hypogastric region. Subsequently, his medical examination was done again, as a result of which fracture on left proximal phalanx of left finger was found. On this basis, offence under Sec.326 IPC was added against Madan Lal and Sunekh Chander. 7. Counsel representing the parties have submitted before me that parties have already entered into a compromise and taking into consideration the circumstances or the case, the petitioners in both the cases be allowed benefit of bail. 8. State counsel while opposing the bail applications has contended that the weapons of offence are yet to be recovered from the petitioner accused and for that reason their custodial interrogation would be needed. 9. Without going into the merits of the respective stands taken before me and in view of the material available on record, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners in both the petitions shall be admitted to bail by the arresting officer, on their furnishing bail bonds with sureties in the like amount undertaking therein to comply with the conditions laid down under Sec.438 (2) of the Code. Applications allowed.