Bhupesh Mehta vs State on 4 December, 2009

                                  1

  S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5022/2009
       Bhupesh Mehta Vs. The State of Rajasthan

DATE OF ORDER            :     4th December 2009

      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Mr.Sandeep Mehta,for the petitioner.
Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi,Public Prosecutor for State.
Mr.Pradeep Shah for the complainant
                              ....


      The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 323,

307, 325, 341 IPC and Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

has moved this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

      The accusations in the present case are based on a

report made by the complainant Pradeep Salvi on 30.05.2009

that at about 2:30 p.m., he saw the petitioner and another

person raising construction at his plot whereupon he raised the

queries but he was abused in the name of caste and then, the

petitioner gave him beating with an iron rod whereby his leg

bone was fractured and he received other injuries too.

       The facts of the case make out that the said injured

Pradeep Salvi was hospitalised for the injuries sustained and

then, was shifted to Ahmedabad where he expired on

18.06.2009.     After investigation, the charge-sheet has,

however, been filed in the matter against the petitioner for the

offences aforesaid    and not relating to the death of the
                                    2

complainant. The charge-sheet also mentions that there had

been six other cases registered against the petitioner in the

past. It was, however, stated before the learned Sessons

Judge that the petitioner    had been involved in two other

criminal cases.

        It has been pointed out during the course of

submissions that the petitioner is not a previous convict and

no case is pending against him. It has also been pointed out

that there has been a cross-case in this matter registered at

No.189/2009 on the complaint as made by the father of the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 323, 380, 384, 427,

447, 452, 455, 120B IPC against the said deceased Pradeep

Salvi   and another Shri Vinod Salvi who has since been

arrested in the said case and prima facie, it is apparent that it

were the complainant with other accused person who

attempted to trespass into the property of the petitioner   and

then, caused substantial damage to the property. It is also

submitted that as per injury report of the complainant, he

received four injuries by blunt weapon and two of them are

shown to be of bony injuries on left hand and left leg but in

the histopathologcal    report, the cause of death has been

stated as asphyxia; and such injuries are not alleged to be

the cause of death.
                                    3

      It is submitted that there being the cross-case and the

alleged injuries being not the cause of death, in the totality of

circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

      The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail plea of

the petitioner with the submissions that the petitioner has

criminal antecedents and had caused grievous injuries that

led to hospitalisation and ultimate death of         the injured

Pradeep Salvi.

      The facts have been noticed in this case that prima

facie, the injuries said to have been inflicted by the petitioner

are not alleged to be the cause of death that has been stated

to be respiratory failure and then, there had been a cross-case

levelling accusations of the complainant with another person

having intruded into the property of the petitioner and having

caused damage to the property. Before the learned Sessions

Judge, it was suggested that the petitioner was involved in

two other criminal cases; but it has specifically been pointed

out on behalf of the petitioner that he had been discharged in

other cases and such facts could not be refuted by the

prosecution.

      During the course of consideration of this matter, case

diary pertaining to FIR No.189/2009 was also obtained by the
                                        4

Public Prosecutor and perusal of same has left too many

things of dissatisfaction with the Court particularly when it is

noticed that the investigation in the said FIR has been taken

up in an inexplicable leisurely manner. However, presently

the matter being considered on the bail plea of the petitioner,

the other aspects are left for consideration later.

      After having examined the challan papers pertaining to

this case and so also the case diary pertaining to the cross-

case, without comments on merits, this Court finds it a fit case

for grant of bail to the petitioner.

      Accordingly, this bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Bhupesh Mehta

s/o Bansi Lal Menta be released on bail in relation to FIR

No.183/2009 Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur provided

he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with

two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each

to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court for their appearance

before that court on each and every date of hearing and

whenever and wherever called upon to do so till the

completion of trial.

      Several shortcomings and lacunae on the part of the

investigating agency have been noticed by this Court during

the course of submissions in this case like making of incorrect
                                          5

     suggestions about pendency of criminal cases against the

     petitioner without stating complete and correct facts and then,

     of not taking up investigation in the cross-case with reasonable

     expedition and of unnecessary delay. Such shortcomings on

     the part of investigating agency are not appreciated; and it

     shall be required of the concerned authorities to take

     appropriate action in the matter.

            After forwarding the order, this matter be placed to-be-

     mentioned on 11.12.2009 and it shall be required of the

     learned Public Prosecutor to inform the Court about the action

     taken in the matter.



                                     (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

MK