Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 603 (RAJ)

Ram Dayal @ Kalu v. State

2005-02-22

HARBANS LAL

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. His name is not mentioned in the FIR, Parcha Bayan of Chhitar, his statements recorded under Section 161/164 and even in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of his son Ramavtar. Chhitar has also filed an affidavit on 18.11.2004 that the petitioner was not present at the time of incident. He has, therefore, urged that the bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not attracted in this case in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court. Learned PP has opposed the bail application but she could not rebut the aforesaid submissions. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions made at the bar, the materials on record and all other facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be sufficient merit and force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it appears to be a case fit for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Ram Dayal @ Kalu s/o Kalyan in FIR No.200/2002 P.S.Mehandwas registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 365, 307, 302 Indian Penal Code and S.3(2)(5) of die SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to 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. *******