Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1764 (RAJ)

Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2010-10-21

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Sub-Inspector Jairam, the informant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the instant case is one which has arisen on account of political rivalry between the parties, so much so, that the relative of the petitioners namely Smt. Rewati Kanwar had won the election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Papurana District Jhunjhunu held in the month of February 2010 and the relative of the complainant side, Smt. Vidhya Devi had lost the said election. Further, he has submitted that Smt. Rewati Kanwar, is the mother of petitioners Rajesh Singh and Dilip Singh. On the other side, Smt. Vidhya Devi wife of Sardarmal Meena, who is the real brother of Hawa Singh Gumariya, presently posted as Superintendent of Police, at Jaipur. He has also submitted that on perusal of the first information report, it is revealed that a mob had collected on the day of election, where the petitioners were also standing and a scuffle took place between the police party and the public, resulting in damage of vehicles. According to him, no specific allegations with regard to the assailants of the injured had been made. Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasized that because the mother of the petitioners Rajesh Singh and Dalip Singh was leading in the polling that the administration as well as Police Department came in support of the complainants and when their candidate loss the election then two reports with regard to same incident came to be lodged by them on the next day, to wreck political vengeance and cause harassment. Therefore, he has submitted that it is a fit case where the powers of pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., be exercised by this Court which would also be in consonance with the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that all the family members of the accused party including women have been falsely implicated an some of the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They have referred to the first information report and submitted that the accused-party had appeared at the place of election and tried to create obstructions in the process of holding the same and they have been named. Further, they have submitted that the act of the accused party would amount to booth capturing and to create obstructions in holding of election which violates the provisions of the Public Representative act, 1951. As regards the earlier orders of anticipatory bail passed by the Coordinate Bench in respect of the co-accused persons, he has submitted that some facts were brought to the notice of the Court but material facts had been left over at that time. He has also referred to the provisions of Section 135-A of the Public Representative act, 1951. On the aforesaid premises, the prosecution aw well as the counsel fro the informant have submitted that the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. may not be exercised in the present case. 4. This Court has given its anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties and have carefully perused the material on record, including the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate Bench in this cases of co-accused persons. 5. The incident in the present case had taken place in the afternoon of 4.2.2010. On the said day, the election for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Papurana was being held. After the alleged incident, on the next day, two reports came to be lodged (F.I.R. No.34/2010 & 35/2010) on 5.2.2010 at Police Station Khetri District Jhunjhunu. Smt. Rewati Kanwar, mother of the petitioners Rajesh Singh and Dalip Singh and Smt. Vidhya Devi wife of Sardarmal Meena, who is the real brother of Hawa Singh Gumariya, Superintendent of Police, presently posted at Jaipur, had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch Gram Pancayat Papurana. Smt. Rewati Kanwar was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Papurana. Smt. Rewati Kanwar was declared elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Papurana. The first information report No.34/2010 was lodged by Bhagchand, SDM, Khetri on 5.2.2010 at about 11.30 a.m. for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353 IPC; under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 131 and 132 of Public Representative Act, 1951 and the other report bearing o.35/2010 was lodged by Jairam, Sub Inspector posted at Kotwali Jhunjhunu, at Police Station Khetri District Jhunjhunu at about 11.45 a.m. on 5.2.2010 for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 332, 353, 283 IPC and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It has been mentioned by Jairam Sub-Inspector Kotwali Jhunjhunu, in his report, that he had gone to village Papurana on the orders dated 4.2.2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu . In the report (34/2010), lodged by SDM Khetri it has been mentioned that he and the Deputy Superintendent of police, Khetri were patrolling the Panchayat Election on 4.2.2010, during the course of which they reached the village Papurana. 6. In view of the above and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed from the material on record, as well as the fact that instant report was lodged against a large number of persons, who is said to have formed a mob on the road, which included the women folk of the family of Smt. Rewati Kanwar, who have been enlarged on anticipatory bail (7359/2010), by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 4.8.2010, as also some other co-accused persons have been enlarged on anticipatory bail (7936/2010) on 22.9.2010 and the fact that the incident in the present case had taken place on the day when the election for the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Papurana was being held in which the complainant party had lost the elections, I deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 8. 7. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 8. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, in F.I.R. No. 35/2010 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners No.(1) Rajesh Singh son of Late Bagdawat Singh; (2) Dalip Singh son of Late Bagdawat Singh; (3) Vijendra Singh son of Banney Singh; (4) Vijendra Singh son of Hazari Singh; (5) Jagdish son of Jaman Singh; (6) Chatrapal Singh son of Jaman Singh; (7) Sumer Singh son of Ratan Singh and (8) Vikram Singh son of Ratan Singh, shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions :- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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 any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.