MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE seven petitioners along with a few others, out of whom five have already been arrested, are suspected miscreants of an incident said to have taken place in the intervening night of 17th and 18th September, 1981 at the 'durgah' of Nimba Nimbdi On the basis of the information lodged by Abdul Kayum on September 18, 1981, case under secs 147, 148, 307, 326 and 325 read with 149 Indian Penal Code was registered. Abdul Rahim, one of the injured, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the incident on Sept. 21, 1981 and therefore, s. 302 Indian Penal Code was further added against the suspects. It is alleged that on Thursday the 17th Sept. 1981 the complainant and others had gone to Nimba Nimbdi 'durgah' and after 'namaz' were preparing for 'ibadat' when at about 11. 00 P. M. about 20 or 25 persons, armed with axe, hammers, 'burchis' and 'halwanis', entered the Durgah' uttering 'jai Bajrang Bali' and started beating those persons THE Muslims inside the 'durgah' tried to make good thier escape but all of them could not succeed and the rioters, besides giving a beating to them, damaged the articles of the 'durgah' and brokedown the religious pictures and threw them in the mud. Seven persons sustained injuries in that incident, one out of whom viz. Abdul Rahim became serious and expired on September 21, 1981 as stated above Five suspects have been arrested.

(2.) THE seven petitioners, not yet arrested, have filed an application under Section 438 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this Court, contending therein that no case is made out against them and the persons, who are said to have named them in their police statements, neither knew them beforehand nor can identify them if a test identification parade is held. That, the investigation in the case is motivated by political influence and fabrication is writ large on the police record and therefore, the petitioners should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

(3.) AT the commencement of the arguments, Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners No 1, 2,4, 5 and 7 submitted that as the identification parade is yet to be conducted, be does not press the application for anticipatory bail at this stage and shall confine his arguments to the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.