JUDGMENT M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case, registered at the instance of complainant Rajwant Singh alleging that the petitioner , armed with a kirpan, along without four other co-accused, including his son Gurvinder Singh had attacked the complainant causing injuries with sharp edged weapons. The petitioner is attributed an injury, which has been described as 3 mm bone cut on left shin of complainant Rajwant Singh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as a matter of fact the petitioner and his son were attacked by Rajwant Singh and others and an injury had been inflicted by Rajwant singh on the left wrist of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner has received a grievous injury. 3. Learned State counsel informs that a cross version has also been recorded by the police at the instance of petitioner Dalbir Singh. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the police record. The petitioner is about 70 years old and has received injuries on his scull and forearm. There is a fracture on the left forearm. His son Gurvinder Singh has received 3 injuries, which includes a fracture on nasal bone and break in anterior cortex of left tibia besides having received an injury on the scull. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the son of the petitioner has filed a petition for pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed by this court on 28.9.2010. 6. I have carefully considered the injuries on the person of the petitioner as well as on the person of the complainant party. A perusal of the injuries gives an indication that both the parties have inflicted injuries on the person of each other. The injury attributed to the petitioner i.e. cut on the shin bone being a grievous injury, will certainly be a debatable point. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is an old man of about 70 years; having joined the investigation; got recoveries effected, can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of his son, who is much younger in age and is attributed a kirpan blow on the opposite party. As both the parties have received injuries, it will have to be determined as to who had been an aggressor party. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of his son, who is much younger in age and is attributed a kirpan blow on the opposite party. As both the parties have received injuries, it will have to be determined as to who had been an aggressor party. Whether the parties exercised the right of self defence or the parties exceeded the right of self defence, cannot be determined at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 1.9.2010 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. He will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of, during pendency of the trial. —————