JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. 1. The present petition is under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 44/2019, dated 11.2.2019, registered at Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 307, 452, 341, 323, 427, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have seen the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Divya Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr. Ashish Patial, learned Advocate for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the accused had joined the investigation as and when the Investigating Officer so directed him. Learned Additional Advocate General did not dispute this averment. 4. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is as follows: (a) The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Smt. Roma Devi, wife of injured Sanjeev Kumar, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She stated that she is a house wife. (b) On 10.2.2019 at around 11:00 O'Clock, her husband was returning home. At that time, Munim Chand (bail petitioner), was also accompanying him. She further stated that when her husband was about to reach home then Munim Chand started hurling abuses on him. On hearing commotion, all the family members came out of their home. At that time, Bhagi Ram, father of the bail petitioner came down from his house and he obstructed her husband to enter his house. (c) Thereafter, Munim Chand, the bail petitioner and his father Bhagi Ram, without any reasons, started beating her husband. They also, threw stones at the window pans of their house, due to which the window pans of glass broke. On hearing this commotion, her father-in-law and grand-father-in-law also came out of the home. She further stated that after beating her husband, they returned to their home. (d) It was further alleged that due to the beatings administered by Munim Chand (bail petitioner) and his father Bhagi Ram, her husband received injuries on his head and he had to be taken to the hospital. Action was required to be taken. (e) Initially, an offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was found to have been committed and F.I.R. was registered. Action was required to be taken. (e) Initially, an offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was found to have been committed and F.I.R. was registered. (f) The Investigating Officer visited the spot and collected the evidence. He also obtained M.L.C. of the injured from Regional Hospital, Kullu as well as P.G.I. Chandigarh, where the injured had surgery on his head. (g) As per the status report as well as the counsel Mr. Ashish Patial, learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant is undergoing treatment and it is further stated that he is still unconscious. (h) Learned Deputy Advocate General, stated that because of the injures, the speech of the injured had impaired. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that Munim Chand, the bail petitioner, also sustained serious injuries and he remained hospitalized in I.G.M.C., Shimla for 10 days. He further stated that a cross F.I.R. was also registered against the injured for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He also stated that the weapon of offence is the handle of spade and that there is no history of any other crime against the bail petitioner. 6. I am satisfied that the no purpose will be served if the bail petitioner is sent to judicial custody. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present petition on the following grounds: (a) As per the statement of complainant Roma Devi, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no mention of any injuries sustained by the present bail petitioner. (b) That the bail petitioner also suffered injuries and he remained hospitalized for a considerable period. (c) These injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. (d) Prima facie, it creates a situation that genesis of occurrence was suppressed by the injured complainant. (e) There is no criminal history of the bail petitioner. (f) The petitioner is a native and permanent resident of Himachal. Therefore, his presence can always be secured. I am of the considered view that, prima facie, petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. 7. In the result the present petition is allowed. (f) The petitioner is a native and permanent resident of Himachal. Therefore, his presence can always be secured. I am of the considered view that, prima facie, petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. 7. In the result the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 8. This Court is granting the protection subject to the conditions mentioned in this order. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all such conditions: (a) The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. It shall be open for the Investigating Officer to call him as and when he feels such a necessity. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed to do so. However, whenever the investigation takes place within the boundaries of the Police Station or Police Post, then the Petitioner shall not be called before 9 A.M. and shall be let off before 5 p.m. (b) The Petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever. (c) The petitioner undertakes not to contact the complainant, to threaten or browbeat her or to use any pressure tactics. (d) The Petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (e) The Petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. (f) In case the of the launching of the prosecution, the petitioner undertakes to attend the trial and to appear before the Court which issues the summons or warrants and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court. (g) This bail is being granted on the condition that the petitioner shall not threaten or intimidate the injured or his family members. (g) This bail is being granted on the condition that the petitioner shall not threaten or intimidate the injured or his family members. In case, any threat is found to have been given or the conduct of the bail petitioner towards the family of the complainant is found objectionable, it shall be open for the petitioner to file an application for cancellation of the bail. 9. It is clarified that the present bail order is only with respect to the above mentioned FIR. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, against the Petitioner. 10. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.