1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 305/2023 registered at Police Station Malpura, District Tonk for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 341 & 323 IPC, the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that accused-petitioners have been falsely implicated in the matter whereas no offence is committed by the accused-petitioners. The medical injury reports of the injured Mohd. Ismile and Javed show that the injuries caused to injured are simple in nature and no grievous injury is found on vital part of the injured. No injuries caused to injured are dangerous to life. Injuries caused to Mohd. Ismile is specifically attributed to accused and other co-accused Kayyum. The injuries caused to other injured are not attributed specifically to the accused-petitioners. Therefore, this anticipatory bail application of accused-petitioners may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and contends that the role of accused Khalil has specifically mentioned in the FIR lodged by the complainant Mohd. Ismile. He also contends that due to assault by the accusedpetitioners injured Mohd. Smile sustained injuries at his head therefore, this anticipatory bail application of all the accusedpetitioners may be dismissed.

4. I have considered the overall allegations levelled in the FIR and contentions made by the counsel for the accused-petitioners, so also, the fact that in the FIR specific allegation has been made against the accused-petitioner Nos.1 (Khalil) and 2 (Kayyum). It is also stated in the FIR that accused-petitioner Khalil grabbed Mohd. Ismile and Kayyum assaulted with the help of stick at the head of Mohd. Ismile therefore, the role of accused-petitioner Nos.1 & 2 is specifically mentioned in the FIR and it does not appear to the Court that they are not involved in the matter. As far as accusedpetitioner Nos.3 to 5 are concerned no specific role causing injuries to the injured have been assigned.

5. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner Nos.1 & 2. So far as anticipatory bail application of accused-petitioner Nos.3 to 5 is concerned, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application qua accused-petitioner Nos.3 to 5.

6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application qua Khalil S/o Zafar and Kayyum S/o Zafar is rejected and the anticipatory bail application qua accused-petitioners Abrar S/o Khalil, Ashfaq S/o Kayyum and Shahid S/o Khalil is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Malpura District Tonk in F.I.R. No. 305/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-petitioners- Abrar S/o Khalil, Ashfaq S/o Kayyum and Shahid S/o Khalil, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioners shall make themself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.