Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 711 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-03-13

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2014
ORDER By this common order, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2427 of 2013, preferred by Babu Lal, as well as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2428 of 2013, instituted by Om Prakash, shall be decided together. Aforementioned applications have been preferred under Section 439 Cr. P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in a case arising out of same FIR No. 247 of 2012, registered at Police Station, Sadar Sikar, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 302 and 109 IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Babulal, has submitted that inspite of numerous adjournments given, nobody has caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner, Om Prakash. This Court noticing that the present bail applications were filed in the month of March, 2013 and are pending for more than one-year, had also sought explanation from the trial Court as to why for a long period charges were not framed. Explanation has been furnished. The Registrar General is directed to consider the explanation and, if required, may take remedial measures. Since Mr. Bajwa, a Senior Counsel of this Court, in a very elucid manner had dissected the case and advanced the submissions before this Court, it is apparent that the case of petitioner - Babu Lal cannot be distinguished from the case of another petitioner – Om Prakash, thus, this Court shall proceed to decide both the applications, even though nobody has caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner, Om Prakash. In the present case, First Information Report was lodged by one Sundaram Verma, a cousin of the deceased. In the First Information Report, complainant alleged that the deceased, Om Prakash s/o Madan Lal was employed by the petitioners. Complainant had gone in search of deceased and found him tied with a tree in the premises of the accused. To cut short the controversy, it is to be noted that in the postmortem report, twelve-injuries were found on the person of Om Prakash (herein after called as deceased). All the injuries are abrasions and bruises on various parts of the body of deceased. From perusal of postmortem report, it is revealed that the brain and lungs of deceased were congested and there were contusions on the spleen. All the injuries are abrasions and bruises on various parts of the body of deceased. From perusal of postmortem report, it is revealed that the brain and lungs of deceased were congested and there were contusions on the spleen. From further perusal of postmortem report, it is apparent that the deceased was given sound thrashing by the accused. As to why beating was given to the deceased different reasons have been spelt out. According to prosecution, accused suspected that the deceased had committed theft in the house where he was employed, whereas counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to interrogation notes has contended that deceased was committing sodomy with the nephew of accused persons, a child. For the sake of brevity, the arguments raised by Mr. Bajwa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, can be summed-up as under:– (a) From the nature of injuries caused, offence will not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II IPC. (b) There was a grave and sudden provocation for the accused to cause injuries. (c) From the nature of injuries, it is apparent that the accused have not taken any undue advantage or acted in cruel manner or unusual manner. The foundation of above three arguments is that in any case offence will not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and, thus, the petitioners cannot be permitted to languish behind the bars for a indefinite period. In support of this contention, counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Laxman Mahadeo Sariputra vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001 (2) Supreme Cr. 135 and the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Brijlal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 (2) Cr. L.R. (Rajasthan) 1324. Having given my due consideration to the arguments raised, this Court is of the view that the employer cannot violate human dignity and on suspicion mercilessly beat an employee. Furthermore, in this case for a long period, charges were not framed because of adjournments sought by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. Taking totality of the circumstances, nature of offence and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Consequently, both the applications, being devoid of merit, are hereby, dismissed. Taking totality of the circumstances, nature of offence and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Consequently, both the applications, being devoid of merit, are hereby, dismissed. Nothing herein said shall be construed as final expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall strictly confine itself to the evidence to be led by the prosecution or defence, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected file.