S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.7815/2008 DURGALAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. 23.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. SS Hora for the petitioner. Mr. RP Kuldeep,Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Sudarshan Laddha for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri SS Hora, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Durgalal pertaining to F.I.R. No.98/2008 of Police Station Sadar, District Bundi in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 307 (lateron added Section 324, 325, 449 and 302 IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Durga Lal has been falsely implicated and is in no way connected with the offence of this case. The First Information Report is found to have been lodged on 10th March, 2008 by Leeladhar S/o Shri Chauthmal, but his name does not figure therein. Thereafter police examined Leeladhar and Jagdiesh again on 21.6.2008 and the witness Rajendra Kumar on 11.6.2008 who improving their earlier version stated that Durgalal and Purshottam armed with iron pipes landed there and instigated all the accused persons whereupon all of them assaulted Leeladhar, Daulatram, Chauthmal and Dhanraj in a helter-skelter manner as a result of which Daulatram succumbed to injuries. While drawing my attention to the statements of the injured witnesses Leeladhar, Chauthmal and Dhanraj, the learned counsel has further submitted that they have not named the petitioner Durgalal nor have stated his involvement in any manner in the said incident. There is a free fight between both the parties. From the side of the complainant party only four persons sustained injuries whereas seven persons of the accused party sustained in all 20 injuries. The learned counsel has further submitted that the co-accused persons Ramdayal, Shyamsunder, Girraj and Chandra Prakash have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench and the case of the petitioner Durgalal is on a better footing. Hence, keeping in view these factors the petitioner may also be released on bail The learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that Leeladhar, Rajendra Kumar and Jagdish have stated that Durgalal and Purshottam had come on motorcycle and instigated co-accused to kill the complainant party. Having considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and scanned the relevant material, I keeping in view all the facts and circumstances in its entirity, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do feel inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner also on bail. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Durgalal S/o Shri Tejmal, in FIR No.98/2008, Police Station Sadar, District Bundi, shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) together with two surety bonds each of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the trial is concluded. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. PCG