HARI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASHTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned public prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, they were not involved and would not further involved in regard to the dispute of the land, which was subject matter of the revenue suit. It is stated that the petitioners would not interfere in the possession and cultivation in the land in dispute by the complainant unless the matter is decided in his favour. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have opposed this bail application and submit that the petitioners have interfered in their possession time and again and pursuant to the proceeding under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act when the possession was to be given to the petitioners with interference to Patwari, the petitioners again indulged in the illegal activities. Thus, the petitioners may not be granted bail.