MUNNA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for State as well as learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) CONTENTION of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that the present FIR was lodged against the accused -party at the instance of Narayan of the complainant -party after six days of the alleged incident whereas, they assaulted the accused -party. In that incident, six persons from the side of the accused -party received injuries including one injured Munnalal, who sustained fracture of mid frontal region on the skull. Confusion of the police investigation is that complainant -party in the present case was aggressor and they have gone to attack Jagdish Prasad and his group. Jagdish Prasad won elections to the office of President, Milk Cooperative Society. Complainant -party in the present case was loosing party. The incident took place at 11.00 p.m. in the night at the residence of Jagdish Prasad and complainant -party disconnected the electricity supply and subjected to accused -party merciless beating. If at all in that skuffle, the accused -party were aggressors, the FIR should have been lodged immediately and atleast one day after the date of incident but in the present case, FIR was lodged after six days of the alleged incident on 31/5/2010. The entire focus in the FIR was against Jagdish Prasad and the complainant attributed the injury of injured -Harchand to Jagdish Prasad so as to seek his arrest for offence Under Section 308 IPC whereas, investigation that was conducted by the investigating agency revealed that Jagdish Prasad was not responsible for causing such injury and he has been falsely named as an assailant responsible for that injury. Not only this, complainant -party has also enrobed 35 accused only with a view to create a defence for themselves in answer to criminal case which was registered against themselves by the accused -party herein. Even as per the investigation that has now been conducted has resulted into shortlisting of the present petitioners and other accused as the investigating agency is not sure as to who was responsible for causing this injury on the person of Harchand. There is admittedly false implication as well as over implication which is fortified from the fact that FIR is lodged belatedly. Petitioners are on interim -bail for last more than a month and they have not misused that liberty. Accused from the complainant side in the case registered at the instance of the accused -party have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and challan in that case has already been filed.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts aforesaid and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to extend the benefit of pre -arrest bail to the petitioners.