Mahendra and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Mahendra and 3 ors. vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 05, 1989

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760913

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760913
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: I.S. Israni, J.
Decided On: Jul 05, 1989
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Misc. Applications Nos. 1164 and 1838 of 1989
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 438--Anticipatory bail--Accused B auuther of fatal injury and accused C already released on bail--Accused Ma, Mo, C & S are 19 years, 70 years, 75 years & 17 years old--No allegation of causing fatal injury--Held, anticipatory bail be granted to accused Ma, Mo, C & S.;Ch...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahendra and 3 ors.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1989WLN(UC)28

Excerpt

.....old. he was armed with lathi. petitioner moongi lal is an old man of 70 years old and was armed with lathi. petitioner chiman is said to be 75 years of age and armed with lathi. petitioner samandar singh is 17 years student and was armed with farsi. it is given out that none of the persons are alleged to have caused any fatal injury to the deceased persons.;i am inclined to grant bail to four accused-petitioners viz. mahendra moongi, chiman and samander singh.;bail granted - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....caused injuries on account of which death took place. therefore it is submitted by him that none of the accused persons deserve any leniency so far as grant of bail is concerned. regarding two petitioners in application no. 1838/1989, it is submitted by shri srimal that since the judicial magistrate has taken cognizance, they can appear before the judicial magistrate.4. i have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and also gone through the documents, medical report and statements read out in court.5. in the circumstances, i am inclined to grant bail to four accused petitioners viz. mahendra, moongi, chiman and samander in bail application no. 1164/1989, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of rs. 5.000/- and each one surely of the same amount to the satisfaction of trial court.6. i am also inclined to grant indulgence of the provisions of section 438, cr.p.c. to other accused persons omi alias om prakash and durga prasad, in application no. 1838/1989, if they are apprehended by the police in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants issued by the judicial magistrate, bayana in the fir no. 86/88, they shall not be arrested, provided they furnish personal bond in the sum of rs. 5,000/- and one surety in the same amount each. the petitioners are directed to appear in the court of judicial magistrate, bayana from where non-bailable warrants have been issued on the date fixed for their appearance.

Full Judgment

I.S. Israni, J.

1. Both the applications arise out of the same incident, they are, therefore, disposed of by one order.

2. The incident is said to have taken place on 24-8-1988 at Mudhera, in which two persons Sompal and Vijai Singh lost their lists. FIR was lodged against 14 persons. Six persons have been already released on bail and six persons are in judicial custody. For the remaining two persons viz. Om Prakash and Durga Prasad, an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. has been filed, which is presently under consideration. It is given out by Shri Balwada learned Counsel for Mahendra and others, in bail application No. 1164/1989 that Pratap and Chet Ram are the main accused persons and authors of the fatal injuries so far as deceased Vijai Singh is concerned. Chet RAM has been released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. Accused Babu, who has also been released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is said to be author of the fatal injury so for as Sompal is concerned. It is given out by learned Counsel that petitioner Mahendra Singh is student and 19 years old. He was armed with Lathi. Petitioner Moongilal is an old man of 70 years old and was armed with Lathi. Petitioner Chiman is said to be 75 years of age and armed with Lathi. Petitioner Samandar Singh is 17 years student and was armed with Farsi. It is given out that none of the persons are alleged to have caused any fatal injury to the deceased persons. It is, therefore, urged that looking to the tender age two persons and old age of other two accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to they, they deserve to be released on bail.

3. It is contended by Shri P.K. Sharma, learned Counsel in Application No. 1838/89 that the investigation in the matter has taken thrice, twice by local Police and in the third and final time by the C.I.D. It is further submitted that the C.I.D. filed final report so far as petitioners Omi alias Om Prakash and Durga Prassad are concerned. How ever, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against both the petitioners on 6-2-1989 and non-bailable warrants have been issued against both the petitioners. It is also given out that statements of both the petitioners have been recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the CID. It is further given out that the petitioners were not present at the time of incident as evident from 'Rawana Sheets' from the quarries at Khera. It is also submitted that both the petitioners are students and appearing in their examinations in the month of July. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that even though the four petitioners in application No. 1164/89 are not directly involved in causing fatal injuries to the deceased persons but still they were the members of the parties which caused injuries on account of which death took place. Therefore it is submitted by him that none of the accused persons deserve any leniency so far as grant of bail is concerned. Regarding two petitioners in Application No. 1838/1989, it is submitted by Shri Srimal that since the Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance, they can appear before the Judicial Magistrate.

4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and also gone through the documents, medical report and statements read out in Court.

5. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to four accused petitioners viz. Mahendra, Moongi, Chiman and Samander in Bail Application No. 1164/1989, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5.000/- and each one surely of the same amount to the satisfaction of trial court.

6. I am also inclined to grant indulgence of the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. to other accused persons Omi alias Om Prakash and Durga Prasad, in Application No. 1838/1989, if they are apprehended by the Police in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Bayana in the FIR No. 86/88, they shall not be arrested, provided they furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and one surety in the same amount each. The petitioners are directed to appear in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bayana from where non-bailable warrants have been issued on the date fixed for their appearance.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1989 Same Parties Mahendra and 3 ors. vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge I.S. Israni, J.

Criminal