JAGMOHAN, Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) CONTENTION of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is there was dispute between two parties as their agricultural land was situated in the vicinity of each other. Cross cases were registered. While there was one injured on the side of the complainant party Mangi Lal, who received two simple injuries, there was also one injured on the side of the accused Ram Sawroop, who too received two simple injuries. Nature of the injuries and the part of the body on which the injury was received was similar, yet the police registered case against the petitioners for offence under Section 308 IPC, whereas in the FIR lodged by the accused petitioner, offence under Section 323 of IPC was only added. The present case cannot travel beyond Section 323 of IPC even against the accused petitioners even for the same reason.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against the petitioners, the materials collected so far during the course of investigation and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of pre -arrest bail to the petitioners.