1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6967/2009 Bhagirath & Another vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 11.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Vijay Poonia, counsel for the petitioners Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Vijay Poonia, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners pertaining to F.I.R. No. 140/2009 of police station Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu in the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Initially FIR came to be lodged under Section 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but later-on, under the pressure of the complainant party, the offence under Section 307 of IPC has been added. He has further canvassed that the 2 injury caused on the skull of Shayar Singh is not attributed to the petitioners. This injury is alleged to have been caused by the co-accused Mani Ram. Hence, the petitioners may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application on the ground that on 18th May, 2009 at 9.30 PM when Shayar Singh was going to his house, the accused persons namely Mani Ram, Bhagirath and Madu Ram wrongfully restrained him and the accused Mani Ram, who was armed with Kulhadi assaulted upon the skull of Shayar Singh and caused injury. This injury has been found to be grievous in nature and described by the medical jurist to be dangerous to life. The bone injury of the injured Shayar Singh has been operated by the Doctors in S.K. Soni Hospital. The injured is still in semi- conscious state. He is unable to talk and move. The petitioners are also constructively liable for the act of Mani Ram and their bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material available on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence, do not feel inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners and the bail application filed on their behalf deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf 3 of the petitioners (i) Bhagirath S/o Shri Bachnaram; and (ii) Madu Ram S/o Shri Bachnaram stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. DK/-