Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3323 (RAJ)

Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-12-19

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that an FIR was filed by the petitioners against 8 named persons and 6-7 unknown persons for offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 143 and 382, I.P.C. for an incident in which petitioner Surendra Singh received grievous injuries. In the said FIR, it was stated that the occurrence took place at 10.30 A.M. near railway-crossing at village Naal Badi (Bikaner) when one utility carrier came on the spot and from the vehicle Lichhudan, Babu Singh, Gajendra Singh, Jalam Singh, Surendra Singh, Chhelu Ram and Kishore Singh and certain other unknown persons alighted and assaulted the petitioners. They were armed with lathis and iron rods. In that incidenj, the petitioner received . serious injuries on his person. This FIR was registered at S. No. 209 of 2005 at the Police Station Gangashahar. After investigation, the police have filed challan in FIR No. 209/2005 against four persons before the competent Court under Sections 325, 323, 147 and 149, I.PC. 3. It is submitted that a false FIR was also registered by the opposite side at the Police Station which was registered at S. No. 210 of 2005 in which the complainant put up a concocted version and set up a case to implead the petitioner falsely alleging offences under Sections 436, 427, 382, 341 and 323, I.PC., read with Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is contended that in this FIR the complainant alleged the incident to have taken place at 11.30 A.M. The complainant in the said FIR alleged that the petitioner along with one Mohan Singh came to the Check Post of Commercial Taxes Department and assaulted him. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant of the said party alleged that petitioner Surendra Singh called bad names to Bhagirath Meghwal in filthy tongue and accordingly he has been roped in for offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant of the said party alleged that petitioner Surendra Singh called bad names to Bhagirath Meghwal in filthy tongue and accordingly he has been roped in for offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. 4. I have perused the injury report of the petitioner also and have also gone through the challan papers whereby it is clearly revealed that before filing of the FIR No. 210/2005, the petitioner had already filed a complaint with regard to the occurrence which was reported to have taken place at 10.30 A.M. In that incident the petitioner received serious injuries for which he was taken to hospital for medical examination. It cannot be understood how FIR No. 210/2005 could be true in the face of these facts whereas in the FIR No. 210/2005, the time of occurrence is said to be 11.30 A.M. It is significant to mention that FIR No. 210 in which the petitioners are apprehending arrest was filed by Mahendra Singh who is not a member of either of the SC/ST categories. However, in the FIR it has been alleged that the petitioner Surendra Singh used filthy tongue to constitute offence under Section 3(1), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Obviously, the things speak for themselves. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant(s). 6. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant(s), namely (1) Surendra Singh s/o Madan Singh, (2) Bhanwar Singh s/o Narayan Singh and (3) Dhanne Singh s/o Kumbh Singh by I.O./S.H.O. in connection with FIR No. 210/2005 P.S. Gangashahar (Bikaner), they shall be released on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishes two sureties in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishes two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer on the following conditions: (1) That they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (2) that they 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 to any police officer; and, (3) that they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Bail application allowed. *******