DHARAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This bail-application has been filed under S. 438 Crimial P.C. by Dharampal. Smt. Doda Devi, aged 80 years, lodged a report to the fact that her brother Ramkaran, had adopted his son Chiranjilal and her second son Prithvi Singh, sold out his agricultural land in Village, had in Haryana and settled down at Tokha-ka-bas where Ramkaran and Chiranjilal, were living. Litigation started between both the brothers namely Chiranjilal and Prithvi Singh because of the land. Prithvi Singh and his son Rajpal alongwith the petitioner and one Rajendra Pal, who happens to be Prithvi Singh's brother-in-law (Looser) came in a jeep and forcibly took-away Chiranjilal, with an intention to commit murder she attempted to intervene but was pushed on one side and a case later-on is that Chiranjilal, was murdered. A case was registered for offences under Sections 323, 342, 365, 389, 302 and 441 IPC. In normal course, in the bail-application like the present one, no indulgence would be granted by this Court under S. 438 Crimial P.C. but there are certain circumstances, which cannot be lost sight of in this case. Accused applicant is a practicing lawyer for last 18 years and he was already a counsel on behalf of Prithvi Singh, in the revenue cases which were going on between the principal accused Prithvi Singh and deceased Chiranjilal. The author of the first information report is an illiterate lady of 80 years. The S.H.O Police Station, Surajgarh, was personally interested in to the matter and even prior to the incident, Rajpal, had made a complainant to the higher authorities about his counsel. He had recorded the statement under S. 161 Crimial P.C. involving the accused petitioner in the case as one of the person who had been the member of the party attracting deceased Chiranjilal. Subsequently, an important event took-place the wife of deceased Chiranjilal namely Omvati and Smt. Doda Devi, mother filed a complainants in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate & stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated at the behest of certain persons. Not only that statement of Omvati, was also recorded by the Court in this respect as early as 2nd Jan., 1992.

(2.) The application for anticipatory bail was moved on behalf of the petitioner before this Court and a notice was issued and the record was also called for. The petitioner could or could not be implicated in this case the persons informed in elbowing him out but in view of the copies of the criminal complaint placed on record, in my opinion, the case is such where the petitioner could be implicated in the case for the reasons best known to such interested persons even without the knowledge of Smt. Omvati & Smt. Doda Devi. In view of the statement of Smt. Omvati, recorded by the learned Magistrate u/s 200 Crimial P.C. in support of complainant, the situation completely changes.

(3.) It may be stated that when the Court record this application and directed that the case be listed for 6th July, 1992, a telegram dated 5th July, 1992, purported to have been sent by Sadul Singh, was received by the Court, wherein it was mentioned that Mst. Omvati, is being illegally detained against her wishes and her signature had been obtained on blank papers. I do not intend to proceed on this telegram precisely because it is pass 6 months that the statement of Smt. Omvati, has been recorded, post her filing the criminal complaint and obviously, the learned Magistrate, who has recorded her statement in his own hand writing and it was thumb marked by her. More particularly, because it is on printed form of the court. Thus, the hollowness of the telegram is borne out from the record, and it has been sent to influence the Court otherwise. Hence, the telegram is filed.