JAGRAM @ PAPU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dt.26.10.2010 and liberty was granted to the applicant to file a fresh bail application after filling of the challan. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, all other co-accused have been enlarged on bail. The applicant is in judicial custody since Sept., 2010. Further it is submitted that in this matter, for one incident, two cross FIRs were registered. The Police has filed challan under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 336, 324, 325, 326, and 307 Penal Code against the applicant and against complainant party, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 336 IPC. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the main reason for occurrence is that earlier the allegation was levelled by the applicant that one Sattu Ram S/o Thakar Ram tried to outraged the modesty of Smt. Rameshwary wife of accused-applicant Jagram and this was the reason the occurrence. Further it is submitted that though the applicant and all his family members went to the police station but no FIR was registered because compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Later on, this occurrence took place due to the said enmity. Now, the allegation against the applicant is that he had inflicted one head injury upon the injured Jai Singh. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the FIR filed by father of Jai Singh, it has specifically been stated that the said injury was caused by Naina Ram Whereas the injured, in his statement, stated that said injury was inflicted by the applicant upon his head. Further it is submitted that all co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and even if it is accepted that applicant had inflicted injury upon the head of injured Jai Singh, that too was inflicted in occurrence of free fight. Therefore, it cannot be said that applicant alone responsible for the incident took place because cross-case was also registered by the accused-party in this matter, in which challan has been filed. Further it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial of the case will consume time. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant has concocted the story with regard to the alleged incident outraging modesty of the applicant's wife. Further it is submitted no such FIR has been registered by the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that incident took place due to the said reason. Further it is submitted that in this case, challan has been filed after investigation and injury, which is inflicted upon the head of injured Jai Singh, is assigned to the applicant. Further it is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that though challna has been filed against the complainant party but not for offence under Sec. 452 IPC. Therefore, accused-applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.