JASWANTI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with others are said to be involved in cross-cases with the complainant party. The disputes pertain to a tract of land along the banks of the Yamuna river. The river is said to have altered its course as a result of which certain portions which were under water became available for cultivation. The dispute is as to who has the right to cultivate the said portion of land. The complainant party claim that it is their right and the party of the accused claim that it is theirs. It is in respect of this dispute that certain heated arguments took place and the petitioners are alleged to have attacked the complainant party. However, the complainant is also alleged to have similarly attacked the petitioners. The petitioners include two ladies Smt. Jaswanti and Krishna and two young boys of the age of 19 years, Vijender and Mukesh. All of them have received injuries at the hands of the complainant party. It is stated that Smt Jaswanti has received a bullet injury whereas Smt Krishna also received some injuries on her head. Insofar as Vijender is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is a bright student and he even stood first in the school in the class 12 examination. His mark-sheet also indicates that he obtained in excess of 82% marks despite being a student of a Government School and coming from a farming family. Vijender is also said to have received head injuries requiring 20 stitches. Insofar as Mukesh is concerned, he has also received injuries inflicted by the complainant party and his arm is said to have been fractured. All these persons are in custody since 8th May, 2005.

(2.) The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail. However, keeping the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the petitioners are either ladies or are young students and all of whom have received injuries at the hands of the complainant party, I direct that they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs 10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(3.) Before I part with this order, I would also like to make some observations with regard to the order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case. The entire order is reproduced as under:- Heard. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations, I am of the considered view that the applicants are not entitled for bail at this stage. The application is hereby dismissed. In other cases also I have noticed that there is a growing tendency amongst the Sessions Judges of not giving any reasons while rejecting or allowing bail applications. This is not a healthy practice and the Supreme Court, in the case of Mansab Ali v. Irsan and Another: (2003) 1 SCC 632, made the following observations in paragraph 4 thereof: The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trials or in appeals against convictions. Since the jurisdiction is discretionary it is required to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In granting or refusing the bail, the courts are required to indicate, maybe very briefly, the reasons for grant or refusal of bail. The jurisdiction is not to be exercised in a causal and cavalier fashion as has been done by the learned Judge in this case. It is hoped that the Courts would be mindful of these observations while passing orders on bail applications, both, while rejecting or allowing, so that there is some indication as to what weighed with the Court in rejecting or allowing the bail applications. There should be a sufficient indication as to whether the discretion has been judiciously exercised or not.