NATHURAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the allegation that the petitioners got into scuffle with two ladies viz., Sarla and Shanti and belaboured them with hands, farsi and stick, first information report was registered by the SHO, Police Station, Khunkhuna for offences under Sections 447 and 323, I. P. C. Later on, during the course of investigation, as a result of examination of injuries, Sections 307 and 325, I. P. C. were added. By filing the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioners seek to raise hypothetical controversy that offences under Sections 447 and 323, I. P. C. are bailable offences and as a result of addition of Sections 307 and 325, I. P. C. the case of the petitioners came to fall in the category of non-bailable offences and as such valuable right of the petitioners to bail has been divested by the police by adding non-bailable offence to the investigation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was only one fracture on the hand of injured Shanti but the police have, without going into the nature of the injury, rushed to add offences under Sections 307 and 325, I. P. C. and they want to arrest the petitioners and other co-accused. It is contended that without any evidence as to the ingredients for making out a case under Section 307, I. P. C., only because in the FIR Section 307,I. P. C. has been added, the petitioners have lost their right to bail despite the fact that other offences for which the petitioners have been booked are bailable offences.

(3.) Rhyming up the controversy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of 70% challan filed under Section 307, I. P. C., out of them, 60% cases are remanded at the stage of charge by the Judge concerned to the Magistrate Court and, thereby, 70% citizens of India, so embroiled, suffer incarceration only because a case under Section 307, I. P. C. is registered against them. He submits that ultimately, at the trial, the offence under Section 307, I. P. C. does not hold water before the law. Hammering the discretion exercised by the police under the provisions of law, the learned counsel argues that the mighty State divests the citizens of their liberty with heavy hand- edness of law without any rhyme and reason which goes to fall short of bona fide in State action resulting in injustice to the poor people of India who, therefore, can only rush to the superior Courts to get justice; but due to financial and economic problems many a time they are not in a position to do so.