2006 Supreme(Raj) 1328
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : GOPAL KISHAN VYAS
DEVI LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION 1321 Of 2006
Decided On : 05/05/2006
ASHOK UPADHAYAY, MRIDUL JAIN, V.K.Mathur
The nature and location of injuries are crucial in determining the applicability of charges under Section 307 I. P. C. and the decision to grant bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Offence under Section 307 I. P. C. - Sections 323, 341 and 34 I. P. C. - [FIR No. 27/2006] - [Summary of relevant acts and sections: The court discussed the injuries received by the accused and the complainant parties, emphasizing the nature and location of the injuries to determine the applicability of Section 307 I. P. C. The court also referred to a previous case to support its decision to grant bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The accused applied for bail, arguing that the injuries inflicted did not warrant charges under Section 307 I. P. C. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing head injuries as evidence of the severity of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the injuries on both sides and the nature of the injuries, ultimately granting bail to the accused-applicants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the injuries warranted charges under Section 307 I. P. C. and if bail should be granted based on the nature of the injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the specific facts of the case, including the nature and location of the injuries, and referred to a previous case to support its decision to grant bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the accused-applicants on bail.
( 1 ) I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and carefully gone through the impugned order.
( 2 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that all other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and in this case cross FIR has also been filed by the accused-party. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant Jiya Lal received as many as five injuries including injury upon his head and another accused tulsa Ram received three injuries but knowingly that there is injury upon the head of Jiya Lal, the Police has registered the case under Sections 323, 341 and 34 i. P. C. against the complainant party in which the investigation is going on. In the present case, injured Gopi Ram has received two injuries out of which one is upon head and injured Kanshi Ram also received one injury upon head. The injury received by injured Kanshiram was simple in nature but injury received by Gopi Ram was grievous in nature. At present, injured Gopi Ram is physically fit though the case was registered against the applicants under sections 341, 323 and 143 but after medical report, the police has added Section 307 I. P. C. and investigation is going on in both the cases.
( 3 ) FURTHER, it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complainant party has also received serious injury upon the head. It is also contended that there was no intention to inflict any injury upon the person of injured Gopi Ram but as per the allegation levelled in the FIR only one injury was caused by the applicant Devi Lal. Therefore, no intention can be gathered for committing any offence under Section 307 I. P. C. Likewise, other accusedapplicant jiyalal himself received injury upon head but prosecution is not considering that the case falls under Section 307 I. P. C.
( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the bail and contended that the injury was inflicted upon the head and in such type of cases, the consistent view of this Honble Court is that when there is injury upon the head, the offence under Section 307 I. P. C. is made out, therefore, the bail application of the applicants may be rejected. I have perused the case-diary of both the cases.
( 5 ) IN my opinion, it is true that every case is having its own facts and at the time of deciding the bail application, the fact of the particular case is required to be seen and further, when injuries are upon the vital part of the body, then obviously, inference can be gathered that the offence falls under section 307 I. P. C. but simultaneously, it is the duty of the Court to see the other facts of the case also to arrive at conclusion and taking decision for granting bail. In identical bail application being SB criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1750/2006 (Chhagan lal and Ors. Vs. State) decided by this Court on 3. 5. 2006, cross-cases were registered and allegations of inflicting head injuries were levelled against both the parties by way of filing cross-cases and while taking into account entirety of the facts, this Court has granted bail while considering the fact that in cross the trial court has granted bail. The facts of the present case clearly reveal that in the cross-case registered by the applicants though there is injuries upon the head of accused - Jiya Lal but Police has not found the case under Section 307 I. P. C. because the injuries are simple in nature. However, in the present case the injuries are upon the same part of the body and there is no repeated blows by the applicants and applicants are behind the bars from last near about two months. Therefore, looking to the totality of the case and the fact that in the crosscase, the police has found that all the offences are bailable even there are head injuries upon the head of applican