Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 46 (RAJ)

Babulal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner, who is son of the complainant injured under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Brief facts giving rise to this bail application are that on 28.10.2010 complainant Ghashi, who is father of the accused petitioner Babu Lal, lodged a written report with the Police Station Kolva that on 16.10.2010 at about 10.00 a.m. when the complainant was at his fields he found that his son Babulal and his wife were cutting Mango tree and Karunja tree. The complainant asked them not to cut trees upon which Babu his son and his daughter in law started Beating him. Complainant's daughter Neetu rescue him but she was also given Beating. The other daughter of complainant Suman, his wife and one Rampratap saved the complainant. Neetu received grievous injuries upon which she was taken to Dausa Hospital where from she has been referred to Jaipur. After discharge from the Hospital on 26.10.2010, he lodged the complainant. Upon this the Police Station Kolva registered FIR No. 119/2010 for the offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC. After investigation and examining the injuries of the injured persons, the accused petitioner was arrested. After completion of investigation the police filed challan for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 IPC against the accused petitioner before the trial Court and the trial Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused petitioner filed application for releasing him on bail before the Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur and the same was rejected by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24.12.2010. In the order the Sessions Judge observed that two persons namely Gashiram (father of the accused) and Neetu (sister of the accused petitioner) received injuries. Neetu received injury on her head which is grievous in nature and doctor described the said injury dangerous to life. Hence this bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the investigation has been completed and the challan has been filed and trial of the case will take time. The learned counsel further contended that the accused petitioner is in judicial lock since long and he is not a habitual offender and hence the accused petitioner should be released on bail. 3. The learned counsel further contended that the accused petitioner is in judicial lock since long and he is not a habitual offender and hence the accused petitioner should be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that there is a direct allegation against the accused petitioner that he inflicted head injury to Neetu his sister which is grievous in nature and doctor described the said injury dangerous to life. The accused petitioner also inflicted injury to his father which is also grievous in nature. The accused petitioner who is son of Gashi injured and brother of Neetu injured, did not keep the fact in his mind about the pious relation of father and sister while inflicting injuries, which are dangerous to life and serious in nature. In these circumstances the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the accused petitio-ner is not entitled to be released on bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage. 4. At this stage it is not out of place to mention here about the Ancient story of Sharvan Kumar, who did every thing for his blind father and mother. Shravan Kumar belonged to the time when King Dashratha ruled Ayodhya. He was born of poor and blind parents, but they had brought him up remarkably well. He was strong healthy and honest, and he had a good character. He bore sincere love and respect for his parents. He was also a great devotee of God. Everyday he worked hard to make his parents as comfortable and happy. In his leisure time he prayed to God and attended to his poor, blind and aging parents. One day his parents told him that they had be come quite aged. They, therefore, wanted him to take them to the various places of pilgrimage. This could make them fully satisfied and give them abundant peace of mind. It is a typical belief that a pilgrimage to the various shriness and holy places under - taken in old age, purifies the soul and takes one nearer to one's Maker ere the icy hand of Death touches one. But, on the contrary, in the instant case, the position is quite different. Here, the petitioner who is son, beaten his father brutally and hence he has been booked for the offence under Sections 323/334, 307 and 325 IPC. But, on the contrary, in the instant case, the position is quite different. Here, the petitioner who is son, beaten his father brutally and hence he has been booked for the offence under Sections 323/334, 307 and 325 IPC. This Court would like to observe that in the interest of public at large that the son like petitioner is not expected of harming his parents by such type of mischievious activities. The father of the accused petitioner stopped him about not to cut trees in the interest of all particularly our green environment and on this he annoyed with his father and inflicted grievous injuries to his father and sister which have been described by the doctor as dangerous to life. The accused petitioner forgotten about the day on which he will also become parent of his sons. Therefore, in these circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not think it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage. 5. Hence, this bail application is hereby dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial Court after recording of the statements of Ghasi Ram and Nitu.