JUDGMENT 1. 1. This bail application has been filed by one of the accused in the case which by now is known as " Pushkar episode". At the relevant time i. e. on 25th June 1988, the petitioner was a constable posted at the Police Station Pushkar. The other accused in the case are, Mahendra Singh, who was the SHO and some constables. The case of the prosecution is that accused Mahendra Singh was friendly with one Jai Narain Mali owner of the Sun Shadi Cafe and this Jai Narain Mali was inimical with Banne Singh and his two sons Mahendia Singh & Kiran Singh. On the night of 25th June, 1988 Mahendra Singh (SHO) made an entry in the 'Rojnamcha' that he had received information that the deceased persons were keeping drugs in their possession and he conducted a raid wherein the deceased persons tried to attack the police party and the deceased were also injured and sent to the Hospital at Ajmer. Then there was news in the papers that the public of Pushkar had killed these three persons who were smugglers of drugs. Upon this the public became agitated and they took a delegation and met the authorities and the matter was looked into again and then it was found that the police party had gone to the house of the deceased and beaten them mercilessly and dragged them to the police station where they were again beaten and they died as a result of these injuries. Banne Singh had 39 injuries on his body, while his sons had 24 and 26 injuries. The matter has been investigated by the C. B. and then the accused persons were challaned. It may be stated that according to the complainant even now several of the officers who were involved in the case have not been made accused. because according to them Pushkar police station people were in touch with the S. P. and Dy. S. P. of Ajmer and it was in league with the higher officers that this story was given a twist to mislead the public. However, at this stage these details are not to be looked into, because this pica can be raised by the complainant before the Sessions Judge at the appropriate time. 2. S. P. of Ajmer and it was in league with the higher officers that this story was given a twist to mislead the public. However, at this stage these details are not to be looked into, because this pica can be raised by the complainant before the Sessions Judge at the appropriate time. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this petitioner Hukma Ram was not in the police party which went to the house of Banne Singh deceased and the challan has been presented against those persons who were present at the police station, without as much as finding out as to who took part in the heating of the deceased. It is contended that the petitioner belonged to the Nagaur District and had joined service this very year and after completing his training, had returned on the fateful evening only, from his duties at Merta. It is contended that the two constables Duli Chand and Prem Singh have not taken the name of the petitioner amongst those who had given beating to the deceased. It is pointed out that the SHO while making an entry in the Rojnamcha before proceeding to the house of Banne Singh deceased entered that he took four constables with him and the name of the petitioner is not included in these four constables. On these contentions it is prayed that he may be released on bail. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the theory of the SHO Mahendra Singh that there was an encounter has been falsified by the investigation and at this stage when three persons have been mercilessly beaten not only at their house but also at the police station, these persons deserve to be dealt with strictly Bhanwar Singh, Taxi Driver. who took the police party to the house of Banne Singh and some others have taken the name of Hukma Ram as one of the police party. Other witnesses Munna Lal, Rani and Rupa, besides the mother and widow of the deceased Banne Singh, have taken the name of Hukma Ram. The learned counsel for the complainant has also supported the Additional Advocate General in arguing that a false case about keeping smack in possession by the deceased was cooked up by the SHO, in order to save themselves. The learned counsel for the complainant has also supported the Additional Advocate General in arguing that a false case about keeping smack in possession by the deceased was cooked up by the SHO, in order to save themselves. Even the mother and wife of Banne Singh were kept at Police Station Ajmer, so that they could not raise any true and cry. 4. This is the stage of deciding the bail application and at this stage it is not to be seen whether the case can be said to be proved or not. Here is a case where the deceased persons were not only beaten at their own house but they were dragged at the police station and given orating there also. The presence of the petitioner at the police station cannot be ruled out. It has come in evidence that the premises of the police station were washed and cleaned in the morning in order to remove blood stain left by the deceased persons. 5. In Gurcharan Singh & ors. v. State (1978)1 SCC 118 the distinction between sections 437 and 439(l) Cr. P.C. has been pointed out emphasising that there is no ban imposed under section 439(l) Cr. P.C. against granting of bail by the High Court or the Court of Sessions to persons accused of an punishable with death or imprisonment with life. However, the High Court or the Court of Sessions will have to exercise its judicial discretion in considering the question of grant of bail and it is in the facts and circumstances of each case that the question of grant of bail has to be decided. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is too early to form any opinion about the merits of the case, but there can be no denial of the fact that three persons have been mercilessly put to death and persons responsible for this act are the police themselves. When persons who are expected to protect the public or the individual themselves become the attackers and law breakers, then it cannot be said to he in accordance with the sound judicial principles to release them on bail. 6. This bail application is dismissed.Application dismissed. *******