1991 Supreme(Raj) 983
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.R.Calla, J.
Raju s/o Naurangrani - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Appln. No. 3935 of 1991.
Decided On : 13-12-1991
Important Points
The court considered the nature of the injury and the petitioner's employment in the army in granting bail under section 438 Cr.PC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Headnote
Bail - Section 438 Cr.PC - Grievous Injury - Army Employee - Conditions for Bail
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail, arguing that his case was not different from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail. He also claimed that the injury attributed to him was not grievous and that he was an army employee whose service prospects would be affected if arrested.
Finding of the Court:
Considering the facts and circumstances, the court accepted the bail application under section 438 Cr.PC, imposing specific conditions for the petitioner's release.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's eligibility for bail, given the nature of the injury and his employment in the army.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the injury attributed to the petitioner was not grievous and took into account his employment in the army in granting bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. - Shri Naruka submits that in this case, the co-accused persons namely, Nikesh, Bhagwan Singh, Dinesh and Ashok have already been granted bail under Section 438 Cr.PC by the learned Sessions Judge as has been recorded in the order dated 5-8-91 itself. He submitted that the case against the accused petitioner is in no way different than that of the 4 co-accused persons. But in his case, the bail application has been rejected by saying that the injury caused on the arm said to have been attributed to the petitioner has been found to be grievous injury under section 326 IPC. On the last date when the case came up before the court Shri Naruka had filed an affidavit of one Shri Rampratap S/o Hanumana Ram to the effect that the petitioner had been admitted to the bail by the police itself on 22td July, 1991. In view of this affidavit, the court had directed that the Investigating Officer be produced before the court. The Investigating Officer Shii Chimna Ram Meena has stated that the petitioner was not admitted to the bail by the police, therefore, the matter was examined on merits, and the bail application was considered on merits.
2. Shri Naruka has argued that the petitioner is an employee in the Army and in case, he is arrested, his service prospects in army shall be affected.
3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined J to accept the batl application of accused petitioner under section 438 Cr.PC.
4. The S.H.O./Arresting Officer/investigating Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu in FIR No. 221/1991, in the event of the arrest of the accused petitioner Raju S/o Shri Naurang Ram, be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions :
1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that the petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the court, or any police officer;
3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
Bail granted.
*******
Back
