JUDGMENT 1. - These two bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C., though relate to different F.I.R. Nos. 155/2006 and 156/2006 of Police Station, Bheem District Rajsamand for offences under Sections 406-420 I.P.C. and Section 394/34 I.P.C. respectively, but have been submitted by the same petitioners; and the incidents in question and the accusations being interconnected and forming the part of same transaction, have been heard together and, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, are taken up for disposal together. 2. F.I.R. No. 155/2006 lodged by one Laxmi Devi at 9 P.M. on 18.5.2006 at Police Station, Bheem reads thus: " fo"k; %& dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ckcr~A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd eSa U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( o0[k0 ) ,oa vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV] Hkhe esa lgk;d deZpkjh ds in ij gksdj fnukad 17-5-2006 dks esjs ?kjsyw dk;Z gsrq lnj cktkj Hkhe esa izdk'k nsljyk dh nqdku ls ?kjsyw lkeku esa iqMh csyus dh e'khu o vU; crZu oxSjk ysdj vk;h Fkh ftldk dPpk fcy nqdkjnkj us eq>s fn;k FkkA fcy esa Mh0bZ0bZ0ih0 nhi dEiuh dh e'khu ds doj ij 101@& :i;s dk ewY; vafdr Fkk tcfd mDr nqdkunkj us eq>ls bl e'khu dk 120@& :i;s fy;s FksA eSa vui<+ efgyk gwa eSus vkt fnu esa fcy tc U;k;ky; ds fyfid pUnzizdk'k eh.kk dks crk;k rks mlus dgk fd rq>ls 20@& :i;s nqdkunkj us T;knk fy;s gSaA bl ij vkt 'kke dks eSa 6-30 ih0,e0 ij mDr iqMh csyus dh e'khu iqu% mDr nqdkunkj ds ikl ysdj xbZ o esjs }kjk ;g dgus ij fd mDr e'khu dk fizUV jsV ls rqeus eq>ls T;knk jkf'k olwy dh gS rks bl ij nqdkunkj fnfyi o deys'k nsljyk Hkhe us eq>s xkyh nh o e'khu o fcy nksuksa Nhudj ys yksA vkSj ekaxus ij Hkh fcy o e'khu ugha nhA bl izdkj nqdkunkj dkyw firk izdk'k nsljyk o izdk'kpUnz firk 'kksHkkyky nsljyk fuoklh Hkhe us esjs lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h dh gSA bZryk djrh gwaA dk;Zokgh djkosaA " 3. F.I.R. No. 156/2006 lodged at the same Police Station, Bheem at 9.15 P.M. on the same date of 18.5.2006 by one Om Prakash reads thus: " fo"k; %& dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ckcr~A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 18-5-2006 dks lk;a 7-00 ih0,e0 ij U;k;ky; dh prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh Jherh y{eh esjs fuokl ij vkbZ vkSj mlus eq>s crk;k fd eSa fnukad 17-5-2006 dks lnj cktkj Hkhe ls vfj;Ur~ oklu Hk.Mkj dh nqdku ls nqdkunkj izdk'k nsljyk firk 'kksHkkyky o dkyw firk izdk'k nsljyk ds ;gkWa ls ?kjsyw lkeku o iqMh csyus dh e'khu ysdj vkbZ Fkh ftldk vf/kd iSlk olwy dj fy;k gS o lkeku Hkh okfil ys fy;k vki pyks o iSls okfil fnykvksA bl ij Jhefr y{eh lgk;d deZpkjh ds }kjk crkbZ nqdku ij eSa x;k rks mDr vfj;Ur oklu Hk.Mkj dh nqdku ij izdk'k nsljsyk firk 'kksHkkyky o mlds iq= fnyhi o deys'k firk izdk'k nsljsyk nqdku ij gkftj feys o eSaus dgk fd vHkh vk/ks ?k.Vs igys djhc 6-30 cts gekjs dksVZ dh prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh y{eh nsoh vkbZ Fkh o mlds }kjk [kjhnh xbZ iqMh csyus dh e'khu o mldk fcy Hkh vkids }kjk ys fy;k FkkA bl ij izdk'k nsljyk o mlds nksuksa yM+ds deys'k o fnyhi ,d jk; gks dj esjs lkFk ykrksa&eqDdksa ls ekjihV pkyw dj nh rFkk fnyhi us eq>s idM+ fy;k o deys'k us FkIiM+ dh ekjh ftlls esjk p'ek Hkh VwV x;kA eSa vius vkidks cpkrk blh nkSjku ikl esa [kM+s izdk'k nsljyk us ?kM+sa dh esjs lhus esa o ihB ij o xys ij ekjhA ekjihV ds nkSjku deys'k }kjk esjh tsc esa j[ks 275@& :i;s Hkh Nhu fy;sA eSa fpYykus yxk rks ikl dh nqdku ls jru ns'klfj;k o euksgj ns'klfj;k dY;k.k flag o lUnhi 'kekZ] t;izdk'k 'kekZ ekSds ij nkSM+dj vk, o chp&cpko dj eq>s NqM+k;k ugha tks vkSj T;knk ekjrsA bl izdkj esjs lkFk mDr O;fDr;ksa }kjk ekjihV dj fj"Vh o ywV dkfjr dh gSA vr% dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkosaA " 4. A look at the two F.I.R.s aforesaid, lodged consecutively at 9.00 P.M. and at 9.15 P.M. on 18.5.2006, give out the scenario that according to Smt.Laxmi Devi, who is said to be an employee in the Court of Civil Judge. (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I3heem, she had purchased some kitchenware including a Rolling Machine ("Chapati Press") from the shop in question and the shopkeepers had charged Rs. (Senior Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, I3heem, she had purchased some kitchenware including a Rolling Machine ("Chapati Press") from the shop in question and the shopkeepers had charged Rs. 120/- from her for this Machine as against its printed rate of Rs. 101/- and she was informed of such excess charging by a co-worker, Chandra Prakash; and when she questioned the shopkeepers about excess charging, they (Dilip and Kamlesh) abused her and retained the bill and machine and did not return the same and have, therefore, committed cheating. 5. The other complainant in F.I.R. No. 156/2006 Om Prakash is also an employee with the same Court at Bheem on the post of Assistant Nazir and according to him, the aforesaid Smt. Laxmi Devi had informed him at about 7.00 P.M. on the same day of 18.5.2006 of the aforesaid illegal deeds of the shopkeepers and she requested him to intervene and to help her in fetching back her money. According to the complainant, thereupon he went to the shop where Prakash and his sons Dilip and Kamlesh were found and on his questioning about their dealings with Laxmi Devi, all the three assaulted him in different manner and Kamlesh even robbed him of Rs. 275/- and the neighbouring shopkeepers came down and saved him. 6. The petitioners, Prakash Chandra and Kamlesh apprehending arrest in relation to these two F.I.Rs. moved applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand being bail application Nos. 168/2006 and 169/2006 respectively. The learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to reject both the applications by separate orders on the even date, 2.6.2006. Hence the petitioners have moved these applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 7. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire case has been blown out of proportion by the complainants and has been exaggerated on all material particulars. Learned counsel submitted that the manner in which F.I.Rs. have been lodged against the petitioners show that the only intention has been to harass and pressurise the petitioners and to secure their arrest. Learned counsel submitted that the manner in which F.I.Rs. have been lodged against the petitioners show that the only intention has been to harass and pressurise the petitioners and to secure their arrest. It has also been pointed out that the other accused Dilip, the son of petitioner No. 1 and brother of petitioner No. 2 was arrested in F.I.R. No. 156/2006 and though has been released being a juvenile, there was every opportunity with the investigating agency to make investigation regarding the incident and to collect the necessary information and even to effect recovery, but nothing was done and he was ordered to be released on bail after police reported that no investigation was due from him. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner No. 1 suffered from serious heart ailment and was admitted to hospital at Bheem, then at Beawar and was required to be taken to Ahmedabad for treatment; but in any case both the present petitioners were available before the investigating agency in the night of the alleged incident but were not investigated and now are sought to be arrested only to tarnish their image. [,carried counsel submitted with reference to Section 6 of the Evidence Act that interconnected facts forming part of the same transaction are relevant facts and way be considered for a just approach to a case and in the peculiar circumstances, the series c F.I.Rs. may be considered one lodged at 9 P.M. and another at 9.15 P.M. respectively by Laxmi Devi and Om Prakash; and the significant fact that Laxmi Devi having asked Om Prakash and upon her asking his having gone to the shop of the petitioners is conspicuously absent in the F.I.R. of Laxmi Devi. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner Kamlesh has also lodged F.I R. on the same day in relation to the altercation at the shop and the same has been registered as F.I.R. No. 157/2006 but was taken at 10 P.M. only. Learned counsel has placed for perusal a Photostat of a copy of Bill No. 329 dated 17.5.21106 drawn in the name of different kitchenware in total amounting to Rs. 522/- in which a rolling machine has also been stated priced at Rs. 101 /-. Learned counsel submitted that the dispute had its genesis at the insistence of the complainant for changing of the goods sold and not otherwise. 522/- in which a rolling machine has also been stated priced at Rs. 101 /-. Learned counsel submitted that the dispute had its genesis at the insistence of the complainant for changing of the goods sold and not otherwise. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are businessmen having their established shop and if arrested in this case, would suffer unnecessarily in their image and are otherwise ready to cooperate in investigation; they do not have any criminal record nor are likely to misuse their liberty or to elope. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed .these bail applications with the submissions that the F.I.Rs. do make out prima facie case against the petitioners and the investigation hitherto -conducted also shows existence of elements of offences against the petitioners and, therefore, they do not deserve the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Vyas submitted that the very fact of lodging of cross-F.I.Rs. and the submissions as sought to be made by the petitioners show it clearly that something has definitely happened and in view of serious allegations, the petitioners are required to be investigated properly and, therefore, they do not deserve bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor; having examining the case diaries in relation to all the three F.I.Rs., this Court, without expression of anything on merits of the case, is of opinion that the present cases are fit one where the accused-petitioners deserve to be extended the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C.; and merely because accusations have been made in the nature of offences under Sections 406-420 I.P.C. (as made in F.I.R. No. 155/2006) and under Section 394/34 (as made in F.I.R. No. 156/2006), the petitioners, admittedly carrying business as traders, ought not be denied anticipatory bail. 10. It is true that the accusations as made against the petitioners do indicate happening of some incident, which fact the petitioners are also not able to deny, but the accusations as made in the two F.I.Rs. which have been registered at the concerned Police Station consecutively at 9 P.M. and at 9.15 P.M. on 18.5.2006 do not inspire confidence and cannot be said to be containing nothing but the truth. On the contrary, the typewritten F.I.Rs. which have been registered at the concerned Police Station consecutively at 9 P.M. and at 9.15 P.M. on 18.5.2006 do not inspire confidence and cannot be said to be containing nothing but the truth. On the contrary, the typewritten F.I.Rs. aforesaid having obviously been lodged after due deliberations and when read in juxtaposition, in view of the allegations as made and the incident as alleged, this Court is of opinion that the possibility of extreme exaggerations cannot be ruled out and is rather prominent on the face of the record. The manner of preparation of injury report of the informant Om Prakash and advising of X-Ray in relation to three bruises on left side of chest wall (X-Ray reports, obviously, show no bony injury) raises more questions than supplying answers. 11. The said informant Laxmi Devi who is said to be employed in the Court, even after allegedly been deprived of the Chapati Press Machine and the bill; and having been abused at 6.30 P.M., has chosen not to lodge the F.I.R. immediately but has allegedly gone to the other informant Om Prakash who is said to be working as Assistant Nazir in the same Court for intervention. Even if the said Smt. Laxmi Devi, alleged to be a Class-IV employee, be treated to be not conversant with the requirements of law, it is inexplicable as to why, how and under which authority of law the said Shri Om Prakash, an Assistant Nazir in a Court, has chosen to visit the shop in question at the askance of Smt. Laxmi Devi and then allegedly attempted to plead her case with the shopkeepers? 12. The fact further is that the present petitioners were available for investigation till 12 O'clock in the night of 18.5.2006 and have lodged F.I.R. at the same Police Station, which has been recorded at 10 P.M., i.e., after recording of two F.I.Rs. aforesaid, but they were yet not put to investigation. It is of course true that the petitioner No. 1 has been shown to have suffered cardiac problem and was sent to Beawar and from Beawar he was referred to Ahmedabad but at 10 P.M. on 18.5.2006 Kamlesh was obviously present in the same Police Station for lodging F.I.R. 13. aforesaid, but they were yet not put to investigation. It is of course true that the petitioner No. 1 has been shown to have suffered cardiac problem and was sent to Beawar and from Beawar he was referred to Ahmedabad but at 10 P.M. on 18.5.2006 Kamlesh was obviously present in the same Police Station for lodging F.I.R. 13. The fact further remains that the third accused Dilip who is 17th of age and is alleged to be sitting in the shop in both the F.I.R.s, was of course arrested but seems not to have been put to any question about the shop nor any attempts have been made for recovery of the machine allegedly snatched by the accused including himself. Even if the bill shown by the petitioners drawn in the name of is rejected as a made up document and is not taken into consideration at this stage, on a comprehensive view of the matter, this Court is of opinion that other interconnected facts forming part of same transaction deserve to be taken in consideration and in an overall view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that both the sides have attempted to exaggerate after the incident. 14. The learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to reject the applications submitted by the petitioners fundamentally on the consideration that the matter requires investigation and it would not be proper to interfere with the investigation by extending benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. having examined minutely the three case diaries and having given an anxious consideration to the entire matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that merely for the requirements of investigation in these matters, the petitioners, having their commercial establishment in the town and admittedly carrying on business, do not deserve to be denied anticipatory bail. No likelihood of the petitioners absconding, misusing liberty or interfering with investigation has been put forward. In the overall scenario, there is no likelihood of the petitioners fleeing away from law nor there is any likelihood of their tempering with investigation/prosecution. Even if it be assumed that some recovery is to be effected from the petitioners, this Court is of opinion that for that ground alone, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, anticipatory bail should not be denied. Every part of investigation could definitely be carried out even without detaining the petitioners. 15. Even if it be assumed that some recovery is to be effected from the petitioners, this Court is of opinion that for that ground alone, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, anticipatory bail should not be denied. Every part of investigation could definitely be carried out even without detaining the petitioners. 15. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and weighing the requirements of personal liberty of an individual and the requirements of proper investigation, this Court is of opinion that in the circumstances of the present case, the petitioners deserve to be extended benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 16. As a result of the aforesaid, both the bail applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners No. (1) Prakash Chandra S/o Shobhalal and (2) Kamlesh S/o Prakash Chandra in F.I.R. No. 155/2006 P.S. 13heem (Bail Application No. 2349/2006) and in F.I.R. No. 156/2006 P.S. Bheem (Bail Application No. 2353/2006), they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer on the following conditions: (i) That they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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; (iii) That they shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. 17. If is made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed to be any comment by this Court i;n merits of the case either way and the observations have been made for the purpose of consideration of the present applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. only.Bail application allowed. *******