GUDIA; RAMAKANT AND ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two bail applications have been filed by the accused-petitioners, who are accused of causing injuries to three persons from the side of complainant-Ramavtar in FIR No. 125/2010 and other police personnels in FIR No. 126/2010.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that dispute between the parties was about construction of raising certain boundary wall and complainant-party filed civil suit not only once but twice. Accused-party in this connection approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police apprehending connivance of the complainant-party with the local police and for providing them police protection during construction of the boundary wall. While they were raising the wall, complainant--party attacked on them and local police assisted with them. In that process, eleven persons from the side of the accused-party received injuries including one boy namely; Aditya aged 2 years, who received three injuries and many females. It is contended that police has already filed challan in which they arrested ten accused, who have all been enlarged on bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. even by the court below itself and that challan against the petitioners has been filed with the aid of Section 299 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are ready and willing to join the trial and that they may be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail considering the fact that most of them are females and they have all been falsely been enrobed in the present case whereas, number of injuries received from the side of the complainantparty were completely a mismatching feature.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the complainant have both opposed the bail applications and submitted that petitioners were constructing the wall at 11.30 p.m. in the night cannot be believed. They were aggressor and three persons from the side of the complainant received injuries apart from police personnels, who have also received injuries. Petitioners are not entitled to bail because of their conduct and their bail applications be rejected.