Full Judgment
[1].S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.
BAIL APPLICATION No.10569/2015 (Tufail Moh.
& ORS.versus State of Rajasthan) Date of order :: 20.11.2015 HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr.B.S.Sandhu, for the petitioneRs.Mr.A.S.Rathore, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr.R.S.Gill } Mr.S.R.Godara } Mr.Trilok Joshi } for the complainant.
Mr.N.K.Sharma } <><><><> For the reasons mentioned in the application (IA No.208/2015) for early hearing of the bail application, the same is allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today itself.
The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.184/2013, Police Station Sadulshahar for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 325, 324, 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
The incident is stated to have taken place on 16.07.2013.
Nanak Singh was the author of the FIR and Veer Singh was the injured witness.
As per the allegation in the FIR, petitioner No.4 - Munsif Ali and petitioner No.7 - Mansar were armed with firearm weapons.
They fired upon Nanak Singh and Veer Singh.
No firearm injury is evident either on Nanak Singh or Veer Singh.
In fact, Nanak Singh and Veer Singh both have compromised and the dispute over the land stands settled.
[2].It is alleged that there were six other persons who were also injured.
Learned counsels for the injured - Bhoop Ram and Makhan Singh stated that the injury received by Bhoop Ram is with firearm which is attributed to the petitioner No.4 - Munsif Ali and petitioner No.7 -Mansar.
This fact is rebutted and disputed by the learned counsel for the petitoneRs.It is contented that the FIR is an outcome of a land dispute and politically motivated.
The medical report has been prepared after three months of the occurrence.
When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 06.11.2015, a specific question was put to the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the injured - Bhoop Singh and Makhan Singh about any specific injury attributed to any of the accused-petitioneRs.However, they were not able to state anything except that the same will be evident only from the Case Diary.
Accordingly, the arrest of the petitioners were stayed and they were directed to join the investigation.
Today, the Case Diary has been placed before this Court.
The injury report of injured - Bhoop Ram shows four injuries.
Out of which, injury No.1 is a lacerated wound, injury No.2 is abrasion, injury No.3 is abrasion and the injury No.4 is only swelling.
The alleged injury with firearm is stated to be injury No.3.
However, the same is described as simple abrasion.
No further medical evidence is available to corroborate that it is firearm.
Subsequently, after three months on 18.10.2013, the medical [3].report was produced as proof of the said injury, which reads as under : “Bhoop Ram S/O Bhagirath 54 year Bishnoi Kheruwala P.S.Sadulsahar who was Medicolegaly examined by M.O.Sadulsahar date 16/07/2013 was admitted in Government Hospital, Sr.Ganganagar on 18/10/2013 wide BHT No.25719.
OT date 21/10/2013 Dr.
I.P.Poonia removed F.B (2) from back ® Scapular region.
Which was Duely sealed and Handed over to SHO PS Sadulsahar for Bellastic Expert Opinion.”
.
From the above, it is evident that in the earlier report, it was only an abrasion.
It is stated that since there was no justification or proof that it was a firearm injury, a subsequent report was prepared after three months.
The same is thus highly doubtful, specially taking into consideration the description of the injury being 'abrasion' in the examination report coupled with the fact that even the injuries on the author of the FIR as well as the second injured witness - Veer Singh were admittedly not firearm as alleged earlier in the FIR.
Subsequently, both stated that they had registered the FIR on account of political pressure.
Moreover, the FIR is of the year 2013 and the petitioners are being sought to be arrested only now.
It is also not disputed that the petitioners have since joined the investigation.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
[4].At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant Makhan Singh submitted that the present case involves offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act.
It was noted in the bail application of the co-accused that only two of the persons from the complainant side i.e.Nanak Singh and Veer Singh belong to Scheduled Caste category and they have no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioneRs.The third person is Makhan Singh who has filed his affidavit stating that he too belongs to the SC category.
However, learned counsel appearing for Makhan Singh admits that Makhan Singh arrived at the spot subsequently.
As such, he cannot be aggrieved with under the SC/ST Act.
Learned counsel appearing for Bhoop Ram vehemently argued that number of other cases are pending against petitioner No.4 Munsif Ali.
This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who states that as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, he is not a history sheeter.
Be that as it may, the facts as narrated above have weighed with the Court for granting the bail and therefore, the pendency of other cases, if any, should not deter this Court from exercising its power for bail in the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.are allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of accused-petitioners (1) Tufail Mohamed s/o Jamaldeen, (2) Mustab Ali s/o Nimaj Khan, (3) Gulam Kadar s/o Ladak Khan, (4) Munsif Ali s/o Lal Khan, (5) Mustafa Khan s/o Kale Khan, (6) [5].Husain s/o Arif Ali, (7) Mansar s/o Jamaldeen, (8) Taj Mohammed s/o Jamaldeen, (9) Iquibal s/o Mubarak Ali, (10) Ilayat Khan s/o Babbe Khan and (11) Imamdeen s/o Nirfe Khan in connection with the aforesaid FIR, they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer on the following conditions:- 1.
That the petitioners shall join investigation and make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating officer as and when required.
2.
That the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the court of to any police officer.
3.
That the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR).J.
Anil/30