JUDGMENT : Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. FIR NO. Dated Police Station Section/s 38 30.03.2024 Sadar Pathankot, District Pathankot 307, 148, 149, 506, 120-B IPC and 25 of the Arms Act (201, 212 & 216 IPC added later on ) The Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of aforementioned FIR. 2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Rahul Kumar @ Shalu, wherein it is alleged that on 30.03.2024 at about 12 noon, when he, Vikrant Singh @ Vicky, Rahul Kumar and Kashmir Singh @ Billi after attending hearing in Sessions Court, Pathankot were present at a tea shop alongwith Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky, Jaswinder Singh @ Sethi, Rakesh Kumar and Kumar, then Vishal Chaudhary @ Ishu, Gulshan, Gopi, Prince @ Dodi and Abhishek Bawa, who were all carrying pistols and Chandan and Rinku, who were carrying ‘datar’, Rishu Chaudhary @ Bamb, who was carrying an iron rod, Varun @ vanu and Anshu Chaudhary, who were armed with ‘datar’ came there alongwith 9-10 unidentified persons and inflicted injuries to them. It is alleged that Gopi fired from his pistol at Vikrant Singh hitting on his right shoulder. Vishal Chaudhary is stated to have fired from his pistol hitting Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky on the right side of his abdomen. Gulshan is stated to have fired a shot at Ajay Kumar on the right side of his abdomen. Prince is alleged to have fired on the left leg of Vikrant. Abhishek is also stated to have fired at the complainant, but the shot missed him. It is further alleged that Vishal and Gulshan fired more shots at complainant, but the complainant managed to save himself. Rinku (petitioner) is alleged to have inflicted a blow with ‘datar’ to Jaswinder Singh on his forehead. Chanchal is also stated to have inflicted a blow with ‘datar’ from its reverse side hitting the left thumb of Jaswinder Singh. Rishu Chaudhary is stated to have inflicted a blow with iron on the left wrist of Rakesh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in question has been lodged after consultation and there are various exaggerations in the same. It has been submitted that although the petitioner is stated to have inflicted a blow with ‘datar’ on the forehead of Jaswinder, but said Jaswinder never got himself medically examined. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in question has been lodged after consultation and there are various exaggerations in the same. It has been submitted that although the petitioner is stated to have inflicted a blow with ‘datar’ on the forehead of Jaswinder, but said Jaswinder never got himself medically examined. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of Jaswinder annexed with the reply dated 03.09.2024 filed by the State, wherein he has categorically admitted the said factum. It has, thus, been submitted that in the absence of any corroborative medical evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was also present at the spot alongwith other accused and had inflicted injury as alleged. 4. Leaned State counsel, on the other hand, submitted that all the accused had connived and conspired and that even if any accused is not attributed a specific injury still he would be equally liable for the offences in the question. Learned State counsel has informed that the petitioner is involved in one more case i.e. GD No.28 dated 27.09.2023 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 506, 120-B, 148,149 IPC (Section 326 IPC added later on) in FIR No.0132 dated 27.09.2023 registered at Police Station Division No.2, Pathankot, under Sections 324, 341, 148, 149, 120-B IPC (Sections 326 & 201 IPC added later on), which is a cross version. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. While it is correct that the petitioner is specifically named in FIR, but the allegations leveled therein cannot be said to be substantiated from the medical evidence inasmuch as the person to whom the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted an injury was never got medically examined. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where benefit of anticipatory bail can be extended to the petitioner. The petition, as such is accepted and the petitioner, in the event of his arrest is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigation Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.