MOHANLAL AND BROS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioners Mohan Lal, Padam and Raman have filed this second bail application and their first bail application was dismissed on 10.9.1992. Accused petitioner Sohan Lal has filed third bail application and his earlier two bail applications were rejected on 19.8.1992 and 9.4.1993. All the four accused have remained in custody for over a year. The change in the circumstance is that four witnesses have been examined before the Sessions Judge and tint of them two are eye witnesses. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that two eye witnesses who are the sons of the deceased have deposed about specific role of the accused Lakhan and Rati, while the allegations against the accused petitioners are general in nature. For Sohan Lal it is stated that he gave farsa blow on the leg of the deceased, but it is contended that this injury is not corroborated by medical evidence.

(2.) The applications have been opposed by the learned counsel for the Complainant, according to him the case is being delayed by the petitioners and that there are chances that the prosecution will not be able to examine the witnesses if the accused petitioners are released on bail.

(3.) I have considered the circumstances. Lakhan and Rati who have been named as main accused are not before me. Head injury has been attributed to Lakhan and this injury could be said to be mainly responsible for the death of the deceased, though the other 21 injuries have also made their contribution. At this stage it would not be appropriate to express any opinion on the statements of the witnesses and also the role of the accused petitioners, but considering the fact that Lakhan and Rati are not before the court and they appear to be the main persons who caused injuries, these petitioners can be granted bail on appropriate conditions.