SHIVJI & HARI CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail applications u/s 438, Cr. P. C. is the second bail application. The first bail application was submitted and was dismissed on 10.1.85.. Mr. Mantri says when the provision bail application was disposed of, the challan was no doubt submitted but the papers were not taken into consideration. At the time of second bail application the F. I. R., the statement of the informant and Dayaram Mahajan u/s 161, Cr. P. C. and the statements of Dalganji and Babulal u/s 164, Cr. P. C. were read over to me. Mr. Mantri argued that the informant is the real brother of the deceased. In the report he has not named these two petitioners as assailants of his brother deceased Surajbhan. He also argued that in the statements of Dayaram u/s 161, Cr. P. C. he has not mentioned the names of these two petitioners. The witnesses Dalganji and Babulal have not been named in the F. I. R. by Dayaram. These two witnesses Dalganji and Babulal have no doubt named these two petitioners in their statements, but they did not name those four assailants who were named by Dayaram in the F. I. R. It was also argued that it is not known how these two witnesses Babulal and Dalganji were available to the police for investigation.

(2.) The learned P. P. has opposed the bail application.

(3.) I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the P. P. and have also perused the statements u/s 161, Cr. P. C. and u/s 164, Cr. P. C. as also the F. I. R. Without commenting anything on the merits of this case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit. case where the anticipatory bail be granted.