Jagmohan, Nand Kishor and Ram Sawroop vs State

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

Contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is there was dispute between two parties as their agricultural land was situated in the vicinity of each other. Cross cases were registered. While there was one injured on the side of the complainant party Mangi Lal, who received two simple injuries, there was also one injured on the side of the accused Ram Sawroop, who too received two simple injuries. Nature of the injuries and the part of the body on which the injury was received was similar, yet the police registered case against the petitioners for offence u/s 308 IPC, whereas in the FIR lodged by the accused petitioner, offence u/s 323 of IPC was only added. The present case cannot travel beyond Section 323 of IPC even against the accused petitioners even for the same reason.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application, but was not in a position to dispute the factual contents and submissions made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Having regard to the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against the petitioners, the materials collected so far during the course of investigation and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

In the result, this bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Jagmohan S/o Amarlal, (2) Nandkishor S/o Jairam and (3) Ram Sawroop S/o Jairam in FIR No. 112/2010, P.S. Bapcha, District Baran, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 143, 308 and 447 of IPC, they shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to his satisfaction on 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 them 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.