INDER RAJ & ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners Inder Raj and Ramesh, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant documents in the case diary produced before me.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has, at the outset stated that he does not press the bail application of petitioner Ramesh. He has, however, submitted that petitioner Inder Raj is alleged to have caused simple injury to injured Suresh by a sharp-edged weapon on his left wrist and lie is a juvenile within the definition of section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. So, he may be granted the indulgence of pre-arrest bail. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have both opposed the bail application.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against petitioner Inder Raj, the materials on record and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant him the indulgence of pre-arrest bail.