IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6789/2010. Miss Gudia & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2) S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6790/2010. Ramakant & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : August 19, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Jai Raj Tantia for the petitioners. Shri Laxman Meena Public Prosecutor for State. Shri Sandip Pathak for the complainant. ******
These two bail applications have been filed by the accused-petitioners, who are accused of causing injuries to three persons from the side of complainant-Ramavtar in FIR No.125/2010 and other police personnels in FIR No.126/2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that dispute between the parties was about construction of raising certain boundary wall and complainant-party filed civil suit not only once but twice. Accused-party in this connection approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police apprehending connivance of the complainant-party with the local police and for providing them police protection during construction of the boundary wall. While they were raising the wall, complainantparty attacked on them and local police assisted with them. In that process, eleven persons from the side of the accused-party received injuries including one boy namely; Aditya aged 2 years, who received three injuries and many females. It is contended that police has already filed challan in which they arrested ten accused, who have all been enlarged on bail u/S.439 Cr.P.C. even by the court below itself and that challan against the petitioners has been filed with the aid of Section 299 Cr.P.c. Petitioners are ready and willing to join the trial and that they may be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail considering the fact that most of them are females and they have all been falsely been enrobed in the present case whereas, number of injuries received from the side of the complainant-party were completely a mismatching feature.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have both opposed the bail applications and submitted that petitioners were constructing the wall at 11.30 p.m. in the night cannot be believed. They were aggressor and three persons from the side of the complainant received injuries apart from police personnels, who have also received injuries. Petitioners are not entitled to bail because of their conduct and their bail applications be rejected.
Having regard to the facts aforesaid but without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, I deem it just and proper to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to petitioners No.1 to 5 but I am not inclined to extend the same benefit to petitioner No.6-Laxmikant whose SB Cr.Misc.Bail Application No.6789/10 u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is accordingly rejected. Similarly, SB Cr.Misc.Bail Application No.6790/10 u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is also rejected.
In the result, this anticipatory bail application (SB Cr.Misc.Bail Application No.6789/10) in so far as petitioners Nbo.1 to 5 is concerned u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Miss Gudia D/o Bhagwan Sahay, (2) Smt.Seema W/o Laxmikant, (3) Smt.Anita W/o Pawan Kumar, (4) Smt.Maya W/o Kalicharan and (5) Smt.Urmila W/o Netram, they be released by the S.H.O./I.O. in F.I.R. No.125/2010 P.S. Kherli, District Alwar for offence u/Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 452 and 379 IPC, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to his satisfaction with the following conditions:
1. that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that the petitioners 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
3. that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil