SATYENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that complainant Rajendra Kumar made allegation against his real brother Madhu alias Madan Mohan Sharma that he with the help of Sriram, Bunty and Sher Singh and other two persons forcibly abducted him in a vehicle, which was parked opposite Government hospital at Kaladera and subjected him to beating in that vehicle and thereafter left him in front of office of Chomu Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti on his promise that he would leave Kaladera forever. It is contended that Rajendra Kumar neither in the FIR nor in his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.c. and nor even his son Vipin Kumar in his statement to police, named the petitioner. Besides, not a single injury has been sustained by Rajendra Kumar, although he alleged that he was subjected to beating while abducted. It is therefore a false. Co-accused Sher Singh, who was named in the FIR as also in the statement of the complainant recorded under Sec. 161 Code Criminal Procedure has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by order of coordinate bench of this court dated 11/11/2011 and other co-accused have also been released on bail under Sec. 439 Criminal Procedure Code. There is no previously registered criminal case against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application but could not dispute that while Sher Singh was named in the FIR but the petitioner was not named.

(3.) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case however, considering the facts aforesaid and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to petitioner.