Mahendra And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.110/2021 registered at Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 364, 302, 458 and 120-B of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased dated 12.10.2021, issued by a civil hospital, Ahmedabad, it is apparent that the cause of death was cardiac respiratory failure due to injuries on the body and its complications. Learned counsel submitted that though the deceased in his statements dated 02.10.2021 has not specified the injuries caused by the accused persons namely Mahipal, Mahendra and Suresh but from the perusal of FIR and the statement of the eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the allegation of inflicting head injuries upon deceased from an iron rod has been levelled against co-accused-Suresh. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that since the head injury has not been attributed to the present petitioners, the benefit of bail may be extended to them. Learned counsel lastly submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2022, has already enlarged co-accused-Surendra @ Chhela Ram S/o Shri Om Prakash (in S.B. CRLMB No.9500/2022), Shivkaran @ Siyaram S/o Harsukh Ram vide order dated 24.11.2022 (in S.B. CRLMB No.14952/2022), Shobha vide order dated 17.11.2022 (in S.B. CRLMB No.14361/2022), Mahendra vide order dated 13.07.2022 (in S.B. CRLMB No.6886/2022) and Sohan Lal & Anr. vide order dated 17.02.2022 (in S.B. CRLMB No.1356/2022) on bail. Learned counsel thus implored the Court to accept the bail application.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and submitted that the petitioners in a pre-planned manner brutally assaulted the deceased with iron rods and lathis. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the post-mortem report is indicative of the fact that the cause of death is the injuries caused by the petitioners on the body of the deceased and its complications. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Heard.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view of the fact that all accused persons were alleged to have been armed with lathis and iron rods, were charged with Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 364, 302, 458 and 120-B of IPC, at this stage it would not be justified and proper for this Court to consider the individual role of the accused persons.

It is also to be noted that deceased and other eye witnesses in their statements have clearly alleged that all the petitioners were armed with lathis and iron rods who brutally assaulted the deceased in a pre-planned manner to cause his death. Mere fact that petitioners were armed with lathis and the head injury has been attributed to co-accused-Suresh, cannot be a ground sufficient to release them on bail at this stage.

As far as argument with regard to grant of bail to co-accused persons (as indicated above) is concerned, the same is not tenable, as from a bare perusal of FIR and statements of eye-witnesses, it is apparent that the allegations of inflicting injuries have been levelled against the petitioners.

The present bail applications, in view of aforesaid are dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh bail applications after the statements of eye witnesses.