RAM DAYAL @ KALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. His name is not mentioned in the FIR, Parcha Bayan of Chhitar, his statements recorded under Sec. 161/164 and even in the statement under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. of his son Ramavtar. Chhitar has also filed an affidavit on 18.11.2004 that the petitioner was not present at the time of incident. He has, therefore, urged that the bar provided under Sec. 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not attracted in this case in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court. Learned PP has opposed the bail application but she could not rebut the aforesaid submissions.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid submissions made at the bar, the materials on record and all other facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be sufficient merit and force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and it appears to be a case fit for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.