ANNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of injured. In the FIR, it was stated by injured that Anna Ram the present applicant inflicted injury upon head with 'rod', thereafter, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the same person upon whose statement the FIR was registered, stated that Anna Ram was armed with 'kulhari'.

(2.) Further, as per the statement of Kishore Singh, Anna Ram was armed with 'barchi'. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. The persons against whom the specific allegations were levelled are Dhanna Ram and Pabu Ram and police has not filed challan against them.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail and contended that in the FIR, there is mention that the present applicant was armed with 'rod' as well as 'barchi' and as per the medical report, there are incised wounds.