Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 17 (RAJ)

Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-02

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. 234/2016 of Police Station Ahore (Jalore) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427, 325 and 326 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not named as assailants in the FIR. It is further submitted that in the FIR, names of co-accused persons Hari Singh, Mahipal Singh, Chikpal Singh @ Sikhpal Singh, Loon Singh and Hukam Singh are there, however, this Court vide orders dated 10.8.2017 and 16.11.2017 has already granted benefit of anticipatory bail to co-accused persons namely Hari Singh and Mahipal Singh, Chikpal Singh @ Sikhpal Singh and Loon Singh respectively and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from them. It is further submitted that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case because earlier, an FIR No. 230/2016 was lodged by the accused party in relation to murder of one Manohar Singh. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, there was previous enmity between the petitioners and the complainant party and on the day of incident, both the parties started quarreling with each other, which resulted into murder of Manohar Singh by gun shot injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there was no intention of the accused party to attack the complainant party, however, when the complainant party committed murder of Manohar Singh, a free fight was started, in which, both the parties suffered injuries. It is, therefore, submitted that taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that co-accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Ganpat Singh S/o Shri Nain Singh and (2) Arvindkaran Singh S/o Shri Chhatar Singh in FIR No. 234/2016 of Police Station Ahore (Jalore), they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner(s) shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner(s) 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 petitioner(s) shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.