1
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. SECOND BAIL APPLICAITON NO.
3523/2009.
Gulla Ram @ Gulab Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan
Date of Order :: 21st July 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor.
Mr. S.K. Maheshwari for
Mr. Sunil Mehta, for the complainant.
...
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner Gulla Ram @ Gulab Singh, having been
challaned for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC along with co-accused persons, earlier
moved a bail application bearing No. 2733/2009 to this Court but
on 19.05.2009, withdrew with liberty to move afresh at appropriate
stage; and the said bail application was dismissed with the
following order:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner shall stand advised not to proceed
with this bail application at this stage but to move for
bail at appropriate stage particularly after complete
reports are filed, more particularly in relation to the
co-accused Shanker Dan; and, therefore, seeks
permission to withdraw with liberty to move afresh at
appropriate stage. Permission granted.
Having regard to the circumstances, the bail
application filed by the petitioner Gula Ram alias
Gulab Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.”
It was noticed at the stage of consideration of the said first
bail application that though challan had been filed against the
2
petitoner Gulla Ram with the co-accused Kalu Ram @ Nanda
Ram son of Shankar Ram Jat and Chhotu Ram son of Gena Ram
and was being separately filed against three juveniles; but further
investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in
relation to the other accused persons Bhanwar Lal son of Bhagu
Ram, Bhura Ram son of Shanker Ram, Rakesh son of Chhotu
Ram, Bhika Ram son of Gaina Ram and Shanker Ram son of
Pancha Ram.
On 26.05.2009, however, the Investigating Agency
submitted its final report to the effect that the aforesaid remaining
accused persons were not involved in the crime; and thereafter,
the petitioner moved a fresh bail application to the learned
Sessions Judge that was rejected on 20.06.2009. Hence, this
second bail application.
The relevant back ground aspects of the matter are that the
petitioner has been challaned for the offences aforesaid after
investigation in FIR No. 217/2008, Police Station Degana, District
Nagaur that was lodged on 04.12.2008 at about 11.10 a.m. by
Budha Ram son of Manga Ram Jat with the submissions that his
son Misa Ram, one Moti Ram son of Chimna Ram, and another
Hema Ram son of Chimna Ram, while returning to their houses at
about 09.00 a.m. after casting their votes, were assaulted by
Shanker Ram son of Pancha Ram, Bhanwar Lal, Gulla Ram son
of Bhagu Ram (the present petitioner) and a few other named
3
persons with sharp weapons, cricket bat, pistols etc. According to
the complainant, the petitioner Gulla Ram hit Misa Ram and Moti
Ram on their head with a cricket bat causing them grievous
injuries and the assailants caused injuries to other persons too.
According to the complainant, the cause of dispute had been the
intention of the accused persons to indulge into bogus voting.
After lodging of the aforesaid FIR, the injured Moti Ram son
of Chimna Ram expired, while undergoing treatment at MDM
Hospital, Jodhpur, on 06.12.2008. After investigation, the police
found six persons, including the present petitioner, involved in the
commission of crime but kept further investigation pending in
relation to some of the accused as referred hereinabove; and, as
noticed, such other accused were not found involved in the crime
as per the final report dated 26.05.2009.
While seeking bail for the petitioner Gulla Ram, the learned
counsel submitted that as per the prosecution story, the deceased
Moti Ram had been assaulted by several persons including the
petitioner with blunt and sharp weapons but then, as disclosed by
the initial Injury Report dated 04.12.2008, there was one incised
injury on the head of the deceased that was, in the opinion of the
Medical Officer, caused by a sharp weapon; and apart from this
injury, he had a bruise on the nose. However, learned counsel
pointed out, both these injuries were found to be simple in nature
on the X-ray examination dated 04.12.2008. The learned counsel
4
further pointed out that Moti Ram expired on 06.12.2008 and the
postmortem report though states head injury to be the cause of
death but shows that he had one stitched surgical wound of
craniotomy and the other one had been a stitched wound on the
parietal region. Learned counsel then referred to some of the
statements of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the
petitioner inflicted injury on the head of the deceased with a
cricket bat whereas Shanker Ram gave him a blow from an axe.
With reference to such material on record, the main plank of the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been
that the solitary injury on the head of the deceased as on
04.12.2008 was the one caused by the sharp weapon and as per
the postmortem report too, the deceased was having stitched
wounds and such wounds are not referable to a blunt weapon;
and, having been assigned a blunt object, a cricket bat, the
petitioner cannot be said to be the author of the fatal injury. The
learned counsel submitted that the deceased had an incised
wound from a sharp object and significantly, the person assigned
the sharp weapon, Shanker Ram, has not been found involved in
the incident at all. In these circumstances, according to the
learned counsel, the credibility of the prosecution story is shaken
at its roots and in any case, implication of the petitioner is
shrouded in serious doubts with no likelihood of his being
convicted for the offence alleged. In these circumstances,
5
learned counsel streneously contended, the petitioner deserves to
be enlarged on bail.
The matter being considered on the application under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., this Court would not like to make any
comment that might have bearing on the merits of the case but
then, contrary to what has been argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, at this stage of the proceedings, exoneration of
Shanker Ram by the Investigating Agency cannot be taken as a
circumstance favourable or advantageous to the petitioner; this
state of record operates, rather, against the petitioner. In the
evidence as collected by the Investigating Agency, the witnesses
are more or less ad idem that the petitioner Gulla Ram was
carrying a cricket bat wherefrom did he inflict the blow on the
head of the deceased Moti Ram; who died as a result of head
injury. In this state of record, if the other person, Shanker Ram,
who was alleged to have given another blow on the head of the
deceased with a sharp weapon has not been found involved in the
crime, the entire accusation for the fatal injury gets diverted
towards the petitioner. When the evidence has categorically been
collected by the police to the effect that the petitioner authored the
injury on the head of the deceased, merely because the other
accused Shanker Ram, said to be the person inflicting another
injury with sharp weapon, was not found involved, in the opinion
of this Court, cannot be taken as a circumstance at this stage
6
whereby the entire prosecution story could be branded false.
The submissions about some inconsistencies and
incongruities in the medical reports do not make out a case of
grant of bail at this stage. This much is clear from the reports of
the MDM Hospital as drawn on the date of incident, i.e.,
04.12.2008, that the victim Moti Ram had received serious head
injuries particularly on the left temporal and parietal regions with
fracture of temporal bone. The value, worth, and implication of
the Injury Report as drawn by the Medical Officers at Degana
would, of course, be a matter for consideration of the learned Trial
Court with reference to the entire material on record but in a
comprehensive examination of all the medical reports pertaining
to the deceased and then, the comments as made in relation to
the cricket bat, said to have been used in the crime by the
petitioner in its recovery memo that its sides were hard and edge-
like (बल क स इड कठ र ध रनम बन हई ह।) and the other
evidence on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for
grant of bail to the petitioner Gulla Ram at this stage.
As result of the aforesaid, this second bail application under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Gulla Ram
@ Gulab Singh son of Bhagu Ram Jat stands rejected.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
//Mohan//