Honble YADAV, J.–The question relating to ``jail or bail during the pendency of trial, involved in the present two bail applications, with regard to custodial death alleged against accused-applicants, who are members of police force deserve serious consideration of this Court. The aforesaid question is to be answered with unstirred judicial mindset. Keeping in view the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence collected by Investigating Officer in support of such accusation, the severity of the punishment which conviction may entail, the difficult task, which uniformed police force to perform in adverse circumstances to maintain law and order and safeguards provided to them while discharging their professional duties, without being influenced with print media, leading to large scale public agitation.

(2). The present two bail applications under Section 439, Cr. P.C., arise out of FIR No. 4(s) 2000/SIC. IV/ND registered for offence under Section 302, IPC, but after investigation, charge- sheet has been filed in Court by Investigating Officer for offences punishable under Sections 304, 323, 325, 218 and 201, read with Section 34, IPC regarding which, Bail Application No. 634/2000 of accused applicant Har Sahay Meena, has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, vide his order dt.29.9.2000, whereas, the first bail application of accused applicant Shanti Chand, was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer, on 3.10.2000, and his second bail application was also rejected on 12.12.2000. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, I propose to dispose of these two bail applications after weighing the pros and cons to the effect that our country and other civilised countries of the world have realised the necessity, to protect the human rights, in view of changing social realities and emerging trends in the nature of crime and violence by evolving and pressing into service the doctrine of zero tolerance.

(3). Both these bail applications arise out of the same FIR, hence, it can be disposed of by a composite order.

(4). For better and deeper understanding of the question, involved in these two bail applications, it is necessary to have a short resume of the facts, leading to unfortunate incident, which trangically occurred on the intervening night of 19th and 20.06.2000, in which, Dharmendra Meghvanshi, a student of MA Final Year, of Government College, Ajmer, lost his life.

(5). It is revealed from perusal of case-diary that Dharmendra Meghvanshi was the President of Government College, Ajmer. It is alleged that on 19.6.2000, on his scooter, Dharmendra Meghvanshi, along with Pappu Rolia and Ashok Chaudhary, had left for Ramganj. He was accompanied by his two other friends. They stopped before a liquor shop at Ramganj, and Dharmendra Meghvanshi purchased a bottled of liquor. He consumed liquor, along with his two friends, namely, Narendra and Pappu, at the crossing of Government College, Ajmer. All of them then left for Karwa Hotel, where, again, the three persons named above, consumed liquor. It is further revealed from perusal of case-diary that on 20.6.2000, at about 12.30 a.m., Dharmendra Meghvanshi, after consuming liquor with his friends at two places, named hereinabove, were going on his scooter RJ-01 2M 9867, which was driven by his friend, Ashok Chaudhary. They reached near Clock Tower, Station Road, Ajmer, for purchasing cigarettes from a tea-vendor, Manu Sindhi, who was selling tea/cigarettes on a `thela, where they met Sugreev Singh Meena, Constable and Pankaj Verma, Home Guard, in their uniform, who were detailed on night patrolling duty in their beat, to maintain law and order. When Dharmendra Meghvanshi, under influence of liquor, and his friend, Ashok Chaudhary saw the police constable and the Home Guard in their uniform, Dharmendra Meghvanshi started staring at their uniform, right from top to bottom. When an objection was raised b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document