RAJESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for Sub-Inspector Jairam, the informant.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the instant case is one which has arisen on account of political rivalry between the parties, so much so, that the relative of the Petitioners namely Smt. Rewati Kanwar had won the election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Papurana District Jhunjhunu held in the month of February 2010 and the relative of the complainant side, Smt. Vidhya Devi had lost the said election. Further, he has submitted that Smt. Rewati Kanwar, is the mother of Petitioners Rajesh Singh and Dilip Singh. On the other side, Smt. Vidhya Devi wife of Sardarmal Meena, who is the real brother of Hawa Singh Gumariya, presently posted as Superintendent of Police, at Jaipur. He has also submitted that on perusal of the first information report, it is revealed that a mob had collected on the day of election, where the Petitioners were also standing and a scuffle took place between the police party and the public, resulting in damage of vehicles. According to him, no specific allegations with regard to the assailants of the injured had been made. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has emphasized that because the mother of the Petitioners Rajesh Singh and Dalip Singh was leading in the polling that the administration as well as Police Department came in support of the complainants and when their candidate loss the election then two reports with regard to same incident came to be lodged by them on the next day, to wreck political vengeance and cause harassment. Therefore, he has submitted that it is a fit case where the powers of pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, be exercised by this Court which would also be in consonance with the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab, 1980 AIR(SC) 1632

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They have referred to the first information report and submitted that the accused-party had appeared at the place of election and tried to create obstructions in the process of holding the same and they have been named. Further, they have submitted that the act of the accused party would amount to booth capturing and to create obstructions in holding of election which violates the provisions of the Public Representative act, 1951. As regards the earlier orders of anticipatory bail passed by the Coordinate Bench in respect of the co-accused persons, he has submitted that some facts were brought to the notice of the Court but material facts had been left over at that time. He has also referred to the provisions of Section 135-A of the Public Representative act, 1951. On the aforesaid premises, the prosecution aw well as the counsel fro the informant have submitted that the powers under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure may not be exercised in the present case.