Judgment G. M. LODHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) PRADEEP Kumar alias Kalua has moved this application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the case of F. I. R. No. 268/84, lodged at Police Station, Bayana under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 341 I. P. C. in relation to the incident dated October 25, 1984. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is required to be arressed in the above case, the first information report of which was lodged by Om Prakash Tiwari. The prosecution case, according to the F. I. R. is that Om Prakash and Mahendra, cousin brothers, were going in Sri Chow. k of Bayana and thereafter they went to Gandhi Chowk. When they were returning on motor cycle, at that time Manno alias Ajeh, Ajay alias Ajjo, Sanjay, Mahendra, Narendrason of Balvir and Kalua Munna son of Sohan Singh, who were armed with hockey, knives, swords came there and encircled them and cried that they must be done to death so that they can rule. They started beating both of them. There was firing. In this incident injury was caused to Mahendra by a knife by Kalua Munna son of Sohan Singh. Others also caused injuries. ( 4 ) THE injured was medically examined and according to the injury report there was an incised wound on the occipital bone of Mahendra. ( 5 ) THIS bail application was moved under Section 438 Cr. P. C. on December 13, 1984 and has remained pending so far because of various adjournments taken on one ground or the other. ( 6 ) ON December 19, 1984 while granting adjournment for calling the case diary, it was ordered that the - petitioner should not be arrested. ( 7 ) MR. Dhankar appearing for the petitioner has traced out the history of the political feud between the two fractions in Bayana and according to him this entire case has been fabricated to humiliate Sohan Singh, who has been responsible for moving successive vote of no confidence against Vimla, Chairman of the Municipal Board, Bayana, who happens to be relative of complainant Mahendra and Om Prakash. Mr. Mr. Dhankar pointed out that immediately after the occurrence when the accused tried to obtain a copy of the injury report, it was not given and even the Chief Medical Officer after issuing the direction for giving of the same, refused to sign it. Mr. Dhankars allegation is that the whole prosecution case has been manipulated on account of the influence of the Tiwaries in Bharatput and the accused, who were supporters of the other group of the earlier Chief Minister Shri Jagannath Palladia are being persecuted and humiliated. It was also pointed out that Complainant Mahendra is himself involved in a series of cases of beating journalist, political workers and others in Bayana and it is impossible to believe that in a place like Bayana he would suffer such injuries at the hands of the accused party as there are only a few houses of Jats in Bayana in comparison to Brahmin families. ( 8 ) IT was also argued that the entire medical injury reports have been manupulated and there was no incident and in any case the accused has nothing to do with it. ( 9 ) MR. Chatterjee, appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed this bail application. According to him, the allegations of political overtones as alleged by Mr. Khankar are wholly irrelevant and uncalled for. ( 10 ) DURING the course of the arguments yesterday, there was some confusion whether the injury report by the Medical Jurist and the sky gram report by the Radiologist are conflicting. The phrase used in the Medical Jurist report was bone deep and it was not very clear whether it meant that the bone was damaged or cut or it only meant that the muscls were cut and the bone was visible. The learned counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor, therefore, after arguing the case requested that the case may be kept for dictation of order so that they may further study the matter and the Public Prosecutor wanted to call the complainant himself to show the site of the injury to remove the doubt about the political manipulations alleged by Mr. Dhankar. Dhankar. ( 11 ) TODAY before commencement of dictation of judgment the arguments were resumed and the complainant Mahendra Tiwari was produced in the Court and the mark of the injury on the head on occipital bone region was shown to the Court as well as to the counsel for the accused. ( 12 ) IT was explained by the prosecution that bone deep only means that the bone was visible Jurist, but it does not mean that the bone was damaged or cut. Mr. Dhankar could not challenge this medical proposition on the basis of any authority of Medical Jurisprudence. In this view of the matter there is no inconsistency between the skygram and the medico-legal report of the incised wound alleged to have been caused by accused Kalua is concerned. ( 13 ) MR. Dhankar then tried to explain that though there is mark of injury on the person of Mahendra, who is present in the Court, but the age of that injury cannot be known, it may be that the injury might be caused earlier to the present incident, because Mahendra is involved in several cases of criminal nature. Mahendra complainant who is present in court today also showed the marks of the alleged injuries on his person by the alleged firing and marks of bruises. Mr. Dhankar argued and this is manipulation. ( 14 ) BE that as it may, at the moment I am concerned with the bail application of Kalua against whom allegation is of causing incised wound by knife on the head of injured Mahendra and undoubtedly that injury is very much visible is the form of a scar on the occipital bone region of Mahendra even by inspection by naked eye. ( 15 ) THE question which now emerges for consideration is that whether in view of political history of a feud between these parties, it must be treated an appropriate case for granting of anticipatory bail. ( 16 ) I have asked Dr. Chatterjee to read the statements of five witnesses, who are said to be eyewitnesses in the F. I. R. Out of the five witnesses all the five witnesses alleged that the accused Kalua had knife in his hand and four of them alleged that his knife was used by Kalua for causing injury on the head of Mahendra. Chatterjee to read the statements of five witnesses, who are said to be eyewitnesses in the F. I. R. Out of the five witnesses all the five witnesses alleged that the accused Kalua had knife in his hand and four of them alleged that his knife was used by Kalua for causing injury on the head of Mahendra. One of the eye-witnesses belong to the community and caste of the accused himself. ( 17 ) IT is really very difficult for this court to assume at this stage that on account of the political overtones of the case as alleged by Mr. Dhankar, the whole incident has been manupulated. Prima facie whatever, might have been political background, a point on which I would not like to express any opinion as it would be injudicious to enter into that controversy, it is obvious that a knife injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body of injured Mahendra and this injury is attributed to present accused Pradeep Kumar by the complainant and four witnesses. Further this fact finds support from the F. I. R. generally, though individual part of each accused has not been mentioned in detail in the F. I. R. ( 18 ) PRIMA facie, therefore, it would be not possible at this stage to give a finding, of political manipulation and concoction of a case against the accused. ( 19 ) IT is also to be kept in view that a knife blow on the vital part of the body like head and that too on the occipital bone region would certainly prima facie make out a case under Section 307 I. P. C. Under these circumstances, there appears to be no extraordinary reasons not to permit the ordinary course of law to take its own course and to take bail without arrest. ( 20 ) MR. Dhankiu has expressed serious apprehension that in view of the political background his client would be beaten in police lock-up and humiliated, by physical torture. This apprehension of Mr. Dhankar can be removed by issuing proper directions as obviously there was some political feud earlier to this case between the families and the apprehension cannot be said to be frivolous or in founded. This apprehension of Mr. Dhankar can be removed by issuing proper directions as obviously there was some political feud earlier to this case between the families and the apprehension cannot be said to be frivolous or in founded. ( 21 ) IT is, therefore, ordered that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur, would ensure that after arrest the accused is kept under his personal supervision and the Deputy Inspector General of Police would visit the accused every day till either he is sent to judicial lock-up or released on bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. If for any reason the Deputy Inspector General of Police himself goes out of station from Bharatpur, then he would entrust the custody of this accused to the next senior man under him ensuring that no third degree methods are used and appropriate care is taken for the safe custody and stay of the accused. ( 22 ) MR. Dhankar inspire of the above safeguards provided by this Court prayed that he may be allowed two weeks time to obtain a bail order from the Supreme Court, if he can, and till then the police authorities may be directed not to arrest the accused. This prayer prima facie sounds to be extraordinary, but in view of the fact that the prosecution itself has allowed the case to languidly in this Court from December, 1984 till now by adjournments one after the other and further in view of the fact that there was political feud between the father of the accused and the relatives of the injured and also between the two rival groups of the political parties, one alleged to be led by Shri Jagannath Pahadia, the earlier Chief Minister and the other opposed to him and led by Shri Girraj Prasad Tiwari, the present Member of Legislative Assembly of Congress (1) and earlier Zila Pramukh and Vimla former Chairm-an, I would prefer to allow the indulgence prayed for by Mr. Dhankar in the interest of justice. Consequently it is directed that the prosecution would not arrest Pradeep Kumar alias Kalua, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur mentioning that he would surrender on 26-3-85 if a bail order is not obtained from the Supreme Court within the next two weeks. 20,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of deputy Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur mentioning that he would surrender on 26-3-85 if a bail order is not obtained from the Supreme Court within the next two weeks. ( 23 ) MR. Dhankar further prayed that the medical reports were not given by the medical authorities and the prosecution may be directed to give them now. It is correct that as is obvious from the original documents shown by Mr. Dhankar, the medical authorities, both Chief Medical Officer as well as the other Doctors have acted in a questionable manner by avoiding the giving of copies of the medical reports. The Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan is directed to make a proper enquiry in the matter and take appropriate enquiry in the matter and take appropriate action against the erring officers, for refusing to give medical reports. The Public Prosecutor, Dr. Chatterjee is directed to give copies of medical reports including the copies of reports of Radiologist to Mr. Dhankar forthwith. ( 24 ) CONSEQUENTLY with the above observations and safeguards for the applicant-petitioner, the application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. is rejected. Anticipatory Bail refused.