1 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5171/2009. Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 5th November 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Farzand Ali for the petitioner. Mr.M.A.Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. ..... BY THE COURT: The petitioner Gopal is accused of the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC for the death of his brother Bannalal, son of the co-accused Laxman Gadri. The FIR was registered on 05.06.2009 on the information give by Chhotu son of Laxman Gadri that the accused persons and the deceased Bannalal had been very often quarreling after consuming liquor; that on 04.06.2009, they were quarrelling inside their house and in the altercation, Bannalal sustained injuries on his head, arms and leg and fell unconscious; that Laxman Gadri came to him and other persons, Jagdish and Madan, in the morning and informed that himself and Gopal (the present petitioner) entered into altercation in the night before and gave a beating to Banna who died therefor. After the requisite investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and his father Laxman Gadri for the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. Seeking bail for the petitioner, the learned counsel has strenuously argued with reference to the evidence as 2 suggested by the prosecution that at any rate, there is no likelihood of the petitioner being convicted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The learned counsel has referred to the statements of the witnesses allegedly recorded during investigation and submitted that the suggestion has come on record about the family i.e., the petitioner, his father, and the brother (deceased), having been quarrelling very often and the present incident has also been that of one such quarrel particularly after consumption of liquor and else, there is no evidence about any pre-planning so as to do certain acts with specific intention of causing death. The counsel further referred to the evidence on record suggesting that the deceased was taken to a medical practitioner by the petitioner himself and the police was also informed voluntarily. The learned counsel yet further referred to those parts of the statements of the witnesses wherein it has been suggested that the co-accused Laxman inflicted the blow on the head of the deceased whereas the petitioner Gopal allegedly inflicted certain blows on the legs of the deceased; and contended that with such nature evidence, the petitioner is not likely to be convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and, therefore, he deserves to be granted bail. The matter is being considered on the prayer for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings are at initial stage where charge-sheet has been filed and the prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded. The evidence as suggested by 3 the investigating agency includes the statements of several persons like Gopal s/o Gokal, Jagdish s/o Balu, Chanda s/o Sukha, Ramnath s/o Khema who suggest, one way or the other, having seen the incident; and at this stage of the proceedings, such witnesses could only be termed as eye- witnesses. The suggestions have come from the witnesses about the co-accused Laxman and the present petitioner Gopal having inflicted lathi blows on various parts of the body of deceased and his post mortem report also testifies to multiple injuries. Merely because the post mortem report suggests the cause of death as “coma resulting from head injury”, in the opinion of this Court, a case for grant of bail is not made out at this stage particularly looking to the gravity of the act attributed to the petitioner alongwith the co-accused. As a result of the aforesaid, the bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner Gopal s/o Laxman u/s. 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected at this stage. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK