BABULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application has been filed by the accused Petitioner, who is son of the complainant injured under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure Brief facts giving rise to this bail application are that on 28-10-2010 complainant Ghashi, who is father of the accused-Petitioner Babu Lal, lodged a written report with the Police Station Kolva that on 16-10-2010 at about 10.00 a.m. when the complainant was at his fields he found that his son Babulal and his wife were cutting Mango tree and Karunja tree. The complainant asked them not to cut trees upon which Babu his son and his daughter-in-law started beating him. Complainant's daughter Neetu rescue him but she was also given beating. The other daughter of complainant Suman, his wife and one Rampratap saved the complainant. Neetu received grievous injuries upon which she was taken to Dausa Hospital wherefrom she has been referred to Jaipur. After discharge from the Hospital on 26-10-2010, he lodged the complaint. Upon this the Police Station Kolva registered FIR No. 119/2010 for the offence under Sections 341, 323/34, IPC. After investigation and examining the injuries of the injured persons, the accused Petitioner was arrested. After completion of investigation the police filed challan for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307, IPC against the accused-Petitioner before the trial Court and the trial Court committed the case to the Court of Session. The accused Petitioner filed application for releasing him on bail before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and the same was rejected by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 24-12-2010. In the order the Sessions Judge observed that two persons namely Ghasiram (father of the accused) and Neetu (sister of the accused-Petitioner) received injuries. Neetu received injury on her head which is grievous in nature and doctor described the said injury dangerous to life. Hence this bail application has been filed under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner contended that the investigation has been completed and the challan has been filed and trial of the case will take time. The learned Counsel further contended that the accused-Petitioner is in judicial lock since long and he is not a habitual offender and hence the accused-Petitioner should be released on bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that there is a direct allegation against the accused-Petitioner that he inflicted head injury to Neetu his sister which is grievous in nature and doctor described the said injury dangerous to life. The accused-Petitioner also inflicted injury to his father which is also grievous in nature. The accused Petitioner who is son of Gashi injured and brother of Neetu injured, did not keep the fact in his mind about the pious relation of father and sister while inflicting injuries, which are dangerous to life and serious in nature. In these circumstances the learned public prosecutor argued that the accused-Petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure at this stage.