SUA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUA and four others have filed this bail application Under Section 438, Cr.P.C. They apprehend that they will be arrested in Case No. 28/81 dated 20.6.81 lodged at P.S. Roopangarh for an offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. The offence relates to murder of one Rameshwar, whose dead body was found near the field. Though the case was registered on 20.6.81, it was argued by Mr. Shrimal, that no evidence whatsoever has been recorded against these accused, and even that police under the pressure of the complainant party wants to arrest these persons.

(2.) THE learned P.P. could not controvert the allegation that there was no evidence against these persons, but submitted that the police is not going to arrest these persons till any reliable evidence comes on the record. It was also pointed out that so far only a few witnesses have said that some days before this incident, Hanuman had a quarrel with Rameshwar deceased and they had threatened Rameshwar that he would be murdered. According to the P.P., this evidence is not sufficient to arrest the accused, and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is ill founded.

(3.) IN view of the above observations, Mr. Shrimal submits that the petitioners would co -operate with the investigating agency for investigation and would submit to the investigating agency as and when they are called, but that should not come in the way of granting anticipatory bail. It was also argued by the learned Counsel, for the accused that the submission of the P.P. that the accused would not be arrested on this evidence would result in deprivation of the liberty by the accused, because on the pretext of any fresh evidence they will be arrested, as the complainant party is very keen to harass and humiliate the accused. To substantiate his submission he submitted that even before this Court the complainant party has engaged a private counsel A.K. Gupta to contest this bail application, which sufficiently proves his allegation, mentioned above.