HANUMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the aforesaid bail petitions filed on behalf of the applicants under Sec. 438 of Crimial P.C. pertain to and arise out of one FIR No. 120/2009 of Police Station Kishangar, District Ajmer registered in the offences under Sections 143, 3341, 323, 325, 308, 379 and 452 of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Hanuman has canvassed that he has been falsely implicated and is in no way connected with the commission of the offence of the instant case. The Investigating Officer of this case has been conducting the investigation with malafides. It is the accused party who lodged the First Information Report first in the police station and the petitioner was got medically examined in the night by the Police Officers. Thereafter, the police in connivance with the complainant registered the case against the accused party next day and manipulating everything commenced investigation in the offence under Sec. 308 of IPC, whereas the facts as narrated in the First Information Report as also the evidence as collected by the Investigating Officer, do not constitute of an offence under Sec. 308 of IPC. So far as the injury sustained by Krishna on her skull is concerned, it has been described by the Doctor to be simple in nature. The complainant and the injured Krishna are alleged to have sustained fractures of Meta carpal bone. From no stretch of imagination this injury can lead to the constitution of an offence under Sec. 308 of IPC. The petitioner is a respectable man of the society. the police intends to hand cuff and humiliate him, as such in view of these factors, the petitioners may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail.