SUKHDEV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file as well as material available on record.

(2.) The present bail applications have been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.99/2022, registered at Police Station Chhatargarh, District Bikaner, for the offences punishable under Ss. 460, 302, 341, 323, 147 &148 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased, it is apparent that the cause of death was coma due to antemortem head injury as detailed in the report which is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the statements of complainant-eye-witness (Saddam Hussain) and another eye-witness (Smt. Satan), wife of the deceased, recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. would reveal that the specific allegation of threatening the deceased, soon before the incident which transpired on 17/7/2022 has been levelled against co-accused Madan Lal. Learned counsel further submitted that though the allegation of inflicting injuries upon deceased with lathis has been levelled against 7-8 co-accused persons but the specific allegation of inflicting injuries upon deceased from the butt (reverse side) of kulhadi and kassi has been levelled against co-accused Madan Lal, Vinod son of Mansukh and Hira son of Kalu. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that there is no allegation of petitioners' being armed with any sharp weapon and further, the head injury has not been attributed to the present petitioners and therefore, the benefit of bail may be extended to them. The petitioners are in judicial custody; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on regular bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the seriousness and brutality of the crime, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners in a pre-planned manner, killed deceased-Aamir Khan. In total 13 injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased were found which had been caused by blunt and sharp weapons. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioners trespassed the house of the deceased with blunt and sharp weapons in a pre-planned manner and killed the deceased Amir Khan brutally, therefore, at this juncture, they cannot be given benefit of the fact that they were armed with lathis and not with any sharp weapon. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view the fact that all the accused persons were alleged to have been armed with lathis and are charged for offences punishable under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 149 IPC, at this stage, individual role of the accused-petitioners cannot be considered, particularly when, from the statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that all the petitioners were armed with lathis and had beaten deceased brutally even after his falling on the ground on receiving a fatal blow on his head, in the considered opinion of this Court, mere fact that the petitioners were armed with lathis and not with sharp weapons is not a ground sufficient to release them on bail, more particularly when, they are charged for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 as well as Sec. 460, 341, 323, 143, 147 and 148 IPC.