UMRAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only because he is a government servant. All other twenty eight accused persons have been enlarged on bail by police at Police Station itself. Petitioner initially filed application for grant of anticipatory bail but learned court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana, rejected the same vide order dated 14.06.2010 observing that all alleged offences are bailable and that so far police has not found any substance in allegation for offence under Section 456 IPC. Petitioner now apprehends that he may be arrested. LEARNED counsel further submitted that earlier two cases were registered against complainant by petitioner's side in which police gave final report. The alleged incident pertaining to offence under Section 456 IPC is of 11th whereas another incident took place on 13th of May, 2009, for which present FIR was registered and the incident of 11th could not be made part of it. Even otherwise the matter has been compromised between the parties. LEARNED Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail application. The Investigating Officer, who is present in person in court, did not deny that matter has been formally compromised between the parties but so far compromise deed has not been filed in the court.