1 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. SECOND BAIL APPLICAITON NO. 3523/2009. Gulla Ram @ Gulab Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 21st July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor. Mr. S.K. Maheshwari for Mr. Sunil Mehta, for the complainant. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner Gulla Ram @ Gulab Singh, having been challaned for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC along with co-accused persons, earlier moved a bail application bearing No. 2733/2009 to this Court but on 19.05.2009, withdrew with liberty to move afresh at appropriate stage; and the said bail application was dismissed with the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall stand advised not to proceed with this bail application at this stage but to move for bail at appropriate stage particularly after complete reports are filed, more particularly in relation to the co-accused Shanker Dan; and, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw with liberty to move afresh at appropriate stage. Permission granted. Having regard to the circumstances, the bail application filed by the petitioner Gula Ram alias Gulab Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.” It was noticed at the stage of consideration of the said first bail application that though challan had been filed against the 2 petitoner Gulla Ram with the co-accused Kalu Ram @ Nanda Ram son of Shankar Ram Jat and Chhotu Ram son of Gena Ram and was being separately filed against three juveniles; but further investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in relation to the other accused persons Bhanwar Lal son of Bhagu Ram, Bhura Ram son of Shanker Ram, Rakesh son of Chhotu Ram, Bhika Ram son of Gaina Ram and Shanker Ram son of Pancha Ram. On 26.05.2009, however, the Investigating Agency submitted its final report to the effect that the aforesaid remaining accused persons were not involved in the crime; and thereafter, the petitioner moved a fresh bail application to the learned Sessions Judge that was rejected on 20.06.2009. Hence, this second bail application. The relevant back ground aspects of the matter are that the petitioner has been challaned for the offences aforesaid after investigation in FIR No. 217/2008, Police Station Degana, District Nagaur that was lodged on 04.12.2008 at about 11.10 a.m. by Budha Ram son of Manga Ram Jat with the submissions that his son Misa Ram, one Moti Ram son of Chimna Ram, and another Hema Ram son of Chimna Ram, while returning to their houses at about 09.00 a.m. after casting their votes, were assaulted by Shanker Ram son of Pancha Ram, Bhanwar Lal, Gulla Ram son of Bhagu Ram (the present petitioner) and a few other named 3 persons with sharp weapons, cricket bat, pistols etc. According to the complainant, the petitioner Gulla Ram hit Misa Ram and Moti Ram on their head with a cricket bat causing them grievous injuries and the assailants caused injuries to other persons too. According to the complainant, the cause of dispute had been the intention of the accused persons to indulge into bogus voting. After lodging of the aforesaid FIR, the injured Moti Ram son of Chimna Ram expired, while undergoing treatment at MDM Hospital, Jodhpur, on 06.12.2008. After investigation, the police found six persons, including the present petitioner, involved in the commission of crime but kept further investigation pending in relation to some of the accused as referred hereinabove; and, as noticed, such other accused were not found involved in the crime as per the final report dated 26.05.2009. While seeking bail for the petitioner Gulla Ram, the learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution story, the deceased Moti Ram had been assaulted by several persons including the petitioner with blunt and sharp weapons but then, as disclosed by the initial Injury Report dated 04.12.2008, there was one incised injury on the head of the deceased that was, in the opinion of the Medical Officer, caused by a sharp weapon; and apart from this injury, he had a bruise on the nose. However, learned counsel pointed out, both these injuries were found to be simple in nature on the X-ray examination dated 04.12.2008. The learned counsel 4 further pointed out that Moti Ram expired on 06.12.2008 and the postmortem report though states head injury to be the cause of death but shows that he had one stitched surgical wound of craniotomy and the other one had been a stitched wound on the parietal region. Learned counsel then referred to some of the statements of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that the petitioner inflicted injury on the head of the deceased with a cricket bat whereas Shanker Ram gave him a blow from an axe. With reference to such material on record, the main plank of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the solitary injury on the head of the deceased as on 04.12.2008 was the one caused by the sharp weapon and as per the postmortem report too, the deceased was having stitched wounds and such wounds are not referable to a blunt weapon; and, having been assigned a blunt object, a cricket bat, the petitioner cannot be said to be the author of the fatal injury. The learned counsel submitted that the deceased had an incised wound from a sharp object and significantly, the person assigned the sharp weapon, Shanker Ram, has not been found involved in the incident at all. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the credibility of the prosecution story is shaken at its roots and in any case, implication of the petitioner is shrouded in serious doubts with no likelihood of his being convicted for the offence alleged. In these circumstances, 5 learned counsel streneously contended, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. The matter being considered on the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., this Court would not like to make any comment that might have bearing on the merits of the case but then, contrary to what has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage of the proceedings, exoneration of Shanker Ram by the Investigating Agency cannot be taken as a circumstance favourable or advantageous to the petitioner; this state of record operates, rather, against the petitioner. In the evidence as collected by the Investigating Agency, the witnesses are more or less ad idem that the petitioner Gulla Ram was carrying a cricket bat wherefrom did he inflict the blow on the head of the deceased Moti Ram; who died as a result of head injury. In this state of record, if the other person, Shanker Ram, who was alleged to have given another blow on the head of the deceased with a sharp weapon has not been found involved in the crime, the entire accusation for the fatal injury gets diverted towards the petitioner. When the evidence has categorically been collected by the police to the effect that the petitioner authored the injury on the head of the deceased, merely because the other accused Shanker Ram, said to be the person inflicting another injury with sharp weapon, was not found involved, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be taken as a circumstance at this stage 6 whereby the entire prosecution story could be branded false. The submissions about some inconsistencies and incongruities in the medical reports do not make out a case of grant of bail at this stage. This much is clear from the reports of the MDM Hospital as drawn on the date of incident, i.e., 04.12.2008, that the victim Moti Ram had received serious head injuries particularly on the left temporal and parietal regions with fracture of temporal bone. The value, worth, and implication of the Injury Report as drawn by the Medical Officers at Degana would, of course, be a matter for consideration of the learned Trial Court with reference to the entire material on record but in a comprehensive examination of all the medical reports pertaining to the deceased and then, the comments as made in relation to the cricket bat, said to have been used in the crime by the petitioner in its recovery memo that its sides were hard and edge- like (बल क स इड कठ र ध रनम बन हई ह।) and the other evidence on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner Gulla Ram at this stage. As result of the aforesaid, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Gulla Ram @ Gulab Singh son of Bhagu Ram Jat stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//