1 S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail App. No. 3949/2007 (Smt. Parma alias Parmudi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : 22/08/2007 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR, J. Mr. B.S.Rathore for the petitioners. Mr. V.R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor. Mr. R.L.Jangid for the complainant. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant. Perused the order impugned and challan papers. I have carefully gone through the statements of witnesses recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as also the post mortem report of the deceased. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as many as eight persons have been named in the FIR by the complainant Ganpat Ram. After investigation, the police filed challan against five persons and no challan has been filed against three persons named in the FIR namely Nathuram, Manu and Godawari. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the present petitioners and those who have not been challaned stands on same footing as the allegation against the persons who have not been challaned and against the present petitioners are almost identical. It is further contended that some of the witnesses namely Jetharam, Rampal and Ratnaram categorically stated that the present petitioners though armed with lathies but were standing and no overt act has been assigned to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 2 that there is specific allegation of causing injuries against co-accused Himmataram and Jetharam. Himmataram alleged to have caused injury by axe on the skull of the deceased and Jetharam over the head just above the ear which corroborates from the postmortem report. I have carefully gone through the statement of Kumari Sampu as also of Jetha Ram, Ram Pal and Poosa Ram. So far as Kumari Sampu is concerned, in her statement no overt act has been assigned to the petitioner Jeta Ram towards the deceased as also no injury has been caused by him. So far as two other petitioners who are ladies, only their presence has been shown, but no overt act has been assigned as also there is no specific evidence of causing injuries to the deceased. Similarly witnesses Jetha Ram, Rampal and Poosa Ram have shown the presence of the petitioners but there is no allegation of causing injuries to deceased. I have also carefully gone through the statement of Pusaram S/o Jetharam who stated that accused Jetharam and Himmataram and family members were causing injuries to Surjaram. Similar is the statement of Hanumanaram. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, there is no specific over-act assigned to them though their presence has been shown. So far as the statement of Shamu daughter of deceased Surjaram is concerned, she stated that petitioner Jetaram was armed with axe and restrained her from coming to the place of the occurrence by threatening that if she comes nearer, she would be cut. Except Shamu daughter of the deceased, no one states that petitioner Jetaram was armed with axe. On the contrary, complainant Ganpatram also does not say that Jetaram was armed with axe. Except Shamu, almost all witnesses 3 stated that petitioner Jetaram was armed with Lathi and was standing along with two ladies namely Manudi and Parmudi. From the recovery memo also it appears that the lathi has been recovered from petitioner Jetaram. Thus, from the statements of various witnesses, prima-facie it appears that the presence of the petitioners has been shown but it has not been stated that they inflicted any specific injury to the deceased. Without commenting on the merit of the case, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the oral arguments advanced by both the parties, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners Smt. Parma alias Parmudi W/o Hanuman Ram, Smt. Manudi alias Munni alias Magna W/o Himmta Ram and Jeta Ram S/o Jetha Ram be released on bail in FIR No. 129/07 P.S. Ladnu (Nagaur), provided each of them executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. (H.R.PANWAR), J. RP