Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1153 (RAJ)

Bakshi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2023-05-23

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The legality, correctness and propriety of the order 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case No.129/2022 has been challenged by the petitioners by way of filing the instant criminal revision petition. 2. Bereft of elaborated details succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the case are that for an incident took place on 16.09.2021, the rival parties lodged separate FIRs Nos.205/2021 & 208/2021 at the Police Station Raipur, District Bhilwara. The manner of incident, cause of action and place of incident though have been shown different but the time and the parties in both the cases are same. The petitioners were made accused in FIR No.205/2021 registered at the Police Station Raipur, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 341, 323, & 34 of the IPC. The sum and substance of the aforementioned FIR would be that the first informant Banshi Lal alleged that the accused-petitioners mowed down the standing crop at his agricultural field upon which when his son went to rebuke the accused, he was beaten up. When the first informant Banshi Lal tried to rescue his son, he was also bashed up as a consequence of which, he received grievous injury on his hand. After registration of both the cases, the investigation commenced and during the course of investigation, the petitioners were released on bail by taking resort of Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. since the offences were bailable. In the case alleged at the instance of the accused-petitioners, the rival party was chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 336 & 325/34 of the IPC. In the case lodged against the petitioners, when the investigation was underway, the first informant Banshi Lal passed away on 29.09.2021. It has been stated that the injuries received by the him were responsible for his death and, therefore, Section 304 of the IPC was also added. 3. It is true that the petitioners were given the benefit of bail on account of the fact that at the relevant point of time the offences were bailable but at the same time, this cannot be lost site that since September 2021 the petitioners are on bail and thereafter, not a single instance has been reported whether by any witness or the victim made a complaint regarding misuse of liberty so granted to them. Even till day, the complainant/victim have not approached this Court for cancellation of order granting bail to the accused. 4. It has been averred that the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor at the behest of the State. Now around two years have lapsed after releasing them on bail and the liberty so granted to them was never misused or abused in any manner. Simply on account of addition of a non-bailable offence; the bail granted earlier would not be justifiable to be cancelled. Had it been the case that soon after the death of the first informant Banshi Lal and for addition of Section 304 IPC, any application would have been moved on behalf of the State or complainant in the year 2021 itself then the circumstances or the consideration would be different. After two years of the passing the order granting bail and remaining the accused on bail, if an order for cancellation of the same is passed; it may re-ignite the rift and acrimony between the parties. There would be every possibility of fume and fret between them with a new issue. There is a clear allegation that when the first informant Banshi Lal made an intervention in scuffle between the petitioner party and the son of the deceased, he received an injury on his hand. It may be a question before the trial Court as to whether the death of the deceased was a direct consequence of the injury allegedly inflicted by the petitioners or not and whether the accused know that the injury allegedly inflicted may cause his death. After lapse of around two years and with too, without there being any complain of abusing the liberty so granted to them, I do not deem it appropriate to allow re-apprehension of the accused and to take them into custody. One of the petitioner is aged about 62 years. There seems no justification for cancellation of bail and, therefore, the order dated 10.05.2023 is not sustainable in eyes of law. 5. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition succeeds and thus, the same is allowed. The order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case No.129/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. There seems no justification for cancellation of bail and, therefore, the order dated 10.05.2023 is not sustainable in eyes of law. 5. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition succeeds and thus, the same is allowed. The order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case No.129/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. Bail bonds submitted by the petitioners under Section 436 Cr.P.C. would continue till the culmination of the trial. 6. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.