GIRDHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applications as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.

(2.) The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants before me is that according to the facts and circumstances alleged in the FIR the male accused No. 1 to 5 were sufficient to cause injury to the first informant and it is highly improbable and unbelievable the two ladies viz. Krishna and Kanta also accompanied the accused persons. The allegations against these two ladies appear to be highly improbable and unbelievable. According to the learned counsel for the applicants the first informant unscrupulously included the name of aforesaid two ladies in order to harass the accused applicants.

(3.) The aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants are refuted by the learned P.P. He raised a preliminary objection that since the applicants did not press their bail application on merits before the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, the instant pre-arrest bail application cannot be disposed-off on merits. He further urged before me that under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the accused applicants cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail.