1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 6322/2009 Neeraj @ Tillu & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 21.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. M.M. Ranjan, for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavrata Sharma, for the complainant. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. M.M. Ranjan Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 312/2009 of police station Mundawar, District Alwar in the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 326 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that they are being falsely implicated in this case by police. He took me through the medical examination report of injured Khagendra @ Sonu and contended that injury No. 4 albeit, has been described to be incised wound caused over upper lip but so far as, the nature of weapon used is concerned, it is stated by the Doctor that it is 'sharp type' weapon. Doctor has categorically stated that this injury has been caused by sharp type weapon. Hence, the police has wrongly registered the case in the offence under Section 326 of IPC. The offence 2 does not travel beyond 325 of IPC, which is bailable and, as such, the petitioners are entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have opposed the bail petition and contended that there being sibling rivalry between two parties, the petitioners assaulted upon the complainant khagendra @ Sonu and caused as many as four injuries on his person. Learned counsel drew my attention to the explanation of Doctor, which was obtained by the Investigating Officer with regard to injury No. 4. The injury has been found to be incised wound caused by the sharp edged weapon, hence, the bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that albeit, the Doctor has found injury No. 4 of injured Khagendra @ Sonu, to be incised wound but it is specifically mentioned that even if the edges of the club are sharp, then the injury shall be treated to have been caused by stick only and stick does not fall in the category of sharp edged weapon. It is a blunt object. Hence, the injury No. 4 of the injured does not travel beyond the offence under Section 325 of IPC which is bailable, rest of the offences are bailable. In bailable offence, the petitioner has got absolute and indefeasible right to get a bail under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. However, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do feel that it is a fit case, wherein petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail and the bail petition is ordered to be allowed. 6. Therefore, the SHO/I.O. Of the Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar is directed 3 that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely Neeraj @ Tillu S/o. Sh. Durga Prasad; and Trivendra @ Toni S/o. Sh. Durga Prasad in FIR No. 312/2009 registered in the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 326 of IPC, he shall enlarge them on bail provided they furnish a personal bond each in the sum of Rs.2000/- with a surety bond each in the like amount, to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required: (ii)They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii)They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv)They will not commit any offence during the period of bail. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-41