RAJPAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and seen the material on record. After hearing the two sides and examining the material on record, I find that the order of the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, Sri P.C. Agarwal is arbitrary and has been passed without looking to the material on record and also without considering the elementary principle for grant of bail. Such subjective and arbitrary orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, Sri P.C. Agarwal came to my notice in few other bail applications decided by me.

(2.) In this case five persons were involved under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. Smt. Bala one of the accused was granted bail simply because she is lady. The other accused Smt. Rita was granted bail because she was pregnant by 24 weeks. Bail application of other three accused was rejected simply on the ground that the nature of the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses did not warrant allowing this bail application. It is at this point that subjectivity and arbitrariness of the Sessions Judge is exhibited. He did not consider the elementary principle for grant of bail. When a cross version was set up, it was incumbent for the Sessions Judge to make a mention of the cross version and also to consider the injuries sustained by the persons on the side of the accused.

(3.) From the side of the prosecution, three persons sustained injuries. All the six injuries of Smt. Roshani were simple in nature. Bir Singh received seven injuries and all were simple. Raju received five injuries. In,juries No. 1 2 and 3 were kept under observation. The remaining injuries were simple in nature. There is no supplementary injury or X-ray report inspite of the fact that injuries No.1, 2 and 3 were kept under observation. The learned Sessions Judge did not even care for enquiring from the State Counsel whether any supplementary injury report was prepared or not. Even till today the learned A.G.A. has not been able to show me supplementary injury report or X-ray report. Consequently it cannot be said abruptly without proper evidence that injuries No.1, 2 and 3 could prove fatal or were grievous in nature. This material aspect was not at all considered by the Sessions Judge.