RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the documents on record.

(2.) Mr. Naqvi brought to my notice that there was similar allegation against the petitioner and co-accused Moti. Both of them inflicted lathi blow on the leg of injured Bishni. Leaned Sessions Judge has granted bail in case of co-accused Moti, while he has rejected the bail application of petitioner u/s. 438 Crimial P.C. Learned PP has not disputed this fact that the allegation and overt act of co-accused and petitioner is similar. When the similar allegations are against the petitioner and co-accused Moti. It is surprised how learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to co-accused Moti while rejected the bail application of petitioner. When the bail application of co-accused Moti has been granted, there is no justification to deny bail to petitioner.

(3.) Taking a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances of the case. I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Sec. 438 Crimial P.C.