KASHIRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application for bail Under Section 498 Cr. PCode was moved before the Sessions Judge, A Bhilsa, who disposed it of in a most perfunctory ' manner. Without applying his mind to the facts of the case, which he should have done, he has refused bail.

(2.) FROM the F. I. R. it appears that the accused Kashiram in this case is a person who is married to the sister of the complainant, Kamal Singh. It also appears there was also a dispute between the brothers in law with regard to the sending of Mst, Halki Bai, wife of the accused Kashiram. We must now consider this case in the background of these facts. The accused have been challenged for an offence of dacoity. Out of the four accused, who have been arrested in this case, nothing has been recovered from the possession of three. Only from accused Nirpatsingh, one Kangna (bangle of silver) has been recovered, the weight of which is 16 Tolas. But in the F. I. R. , the weight of the looted Kangna is given as 12 tolas. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to take notice of the point. It also appears that Kamal Singh complainant has said that he was beaten with Pharshas, Without commenting on the medical certificate, I find that there is no serious or grievous hurt and the doctor has described the injuries as simple. All the facts put together incline me to admit the accused to bail.

(3.) I would like to remind Sessions Judges and all Magistrates who deal with bail applications that the right to remain at liberty is a valuable right and the application for bail should not be dealt with in a superficial manner. The Criminal Procedure Code has laid down that where there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt, the Court shall release the accused on bail.