Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2313 (RAJ)

Inder Raj v. State

2005-08-31

HARBANS LAL

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for petitioners Inder Raj and Ramesh, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant documents in the case diary produced before me. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, at the outset stated that he does not press the bail application of petitioner Ramesh. He has, however, submitted that petitioner Inder Raj is alleged to have caused simple injury to injured Suresh by a sharp-edged weapon on his left wrist and lie is a juvenile within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. So, he may be granted the indulgence of pre-arrest bail. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have both opposed the bail application. 3. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against petitioner Inder Raj, the materials on record and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant him the indulgence of pre-arrest bail. 4. In the result, the bail application of petitioner Ramesh is hereby dismissed as not pressed and that of petitioner Inder Raj is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Inder Raj S/o Sardar in FIR No.283/2005 P.S. Karauli for offences u/Ss. 143, 379, 323 and 452 IPC. he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHOI Investigating Officer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ together with one surety in the like amount of his satisfaction on the following conditions: 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Order accordingly. *******