Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1779 (RAJ)

Shri Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2009-08-07

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, Advocate on behalf of the applicants in FIR No. 186/2006 of police station Udyog Nagar, District Bharatpur, in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 332, 353, 342, 336, 365 and 395 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that they have been falsely implicated and are in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offence of the instant case. The fact is that the Police party assaulted upon Chhote Lal, Puran Singh, Ramji Lal and Maharaj Singh and gave them beating. Balveer Singh opened fire and killed one boy named Shiv Kumar, a report of which was lodged by Puran Singh in Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur. The police did not investigate this case fairly and ompartially and gave final report. But, on the protest petition, the learned trial Court has been conducting enquiry therein, which is pending tor taking cognizance of the offence. So far as the instant case is concerned, a mob of approximately 150-200 persons is alleged to have blocked the road, assaulted upon the police with clubs, rods, caused injuries to police personnel, robbed their revolver and live catridges and damaged the public property, but there is no evidence on record which could connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. The petitioners are innocent, hence, they deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on this ground that the petitioners attacked on the police party, robbed their revolver and caused damage to the public property. They deterred the Police Officers from discharging their lawful duties. The petitioners took the law in their hands, hence, they do not deserve any indulgence of anticipatory bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the names of Shri Bhagwan Singh and Sodan Singh do not appear in the First information Report. The petitioners took the law in their hands, hence, they do not deserve any indulgence of anticipatory bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the names of Shri Bhagwan Singh and Sodan Singh do not appear in the First information Report. So far as the petitioners Laxman and Mahraj Singh are concerned, their involvement prima facie is found to be in committing the alleged offence. Their names also figure in the FIR. The accusation is levelled against the petitioners Laxman and Maharaj Singh does not seem to be false, groundless or baseless. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioners namely Laxman S/o Ramlal and Mahraj Singh S/o Ram Singh stands dismissed. 7. In view of the above position, I deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners namely Shri Bhagwan Singh and Sodan Singh, whose names have not appeared in the FIR and their petition is allowed. 8. The bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of Shri Bhagwan Singh and Sodan Singh is allowed and the SHO/I.O. of the Police Station Udyog Nagar, District Bharatpur is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners Shri Bhagwan Singh S/o Sri Chota Lal and Sodan Singh S/o Ram Khiladi in FIR No. 186/2006, registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 332, 353, 342, 336, 365 and 395 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act, he shall enlarge them on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required : (ii) 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; They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. They will not commit any offence during the period of bail.Bail allowed to B and S but refused to L and M. *******