RAJU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail application was withdrawn with liberty to move a fresh bail application after recording of the statement of the doctor. It is stated that statements of the doctor and the deceased's wife have been recorded and in the statement made by the doctor, it has been given out that deceased was found under the influence of liquor and otherwise, single injury sustained to the deceased my be caused even if one fell down on the stone. Referring the statement of the deceased's wife, it has been shown that in the cross-examination, she has admitted that the deceased fell down on the stone though in the chief, it was stated that head injury was caused by the petitioner but that is not correct and otherwise, if the petitioner would not have any intention to commit the offence under Sec. 302 of I.P.C. then at least repeated blow would have been given to the deceased but the deceased received only one injury, thus looking to the aforesaid, the petitioner may be granted bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed this bail application.