CRLMB6784/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.6784/2010 Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Date of Order ::: 20.08.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Counsel for petitioner Shri G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor Shri Rajeev Sogarwal, Counsel for complainant #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant and perused the material made available to me during the arguments of the case. This is second bail application filed by the petitioner. The first bail application was rejected on 23.06.2010 with liberty to file a fresh after filing of challan. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was originally rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 04.05.2010 with observation that allegation against the petitioner is of causing injury on the head of Banshi by sharp edged weapon which resulted into fracture. The opinion of the medical board, however, is to the effect that the injury no.1 is grievous but the fracture of the right temporal bone does not correlate with the injury no.1, however, may be caused by blunt object and injury no.1 is not dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. Learned counsel submitted that injury no.5 which is abrasion on left side of temporal region is attributed to Kartar, who has already been CRLMB6784/2010 // 2 // enlarged on bail by the learned court below vide order dated 04.05.2010. On the last occasion a doubt was raised about the opinion of the expressed by the medical board and therefore a specific clarification was sought from the medical board as to whether fracture i.e. caused is related to injury no.5 and not to injury no.1 and whether there was no fracture on the skull on account of injury no.1. The medical board was again approached which has given its clarification to the effect that although injury no.1 is grievous but the fracture on right temporal region does not correlate with the injury no.1. At the same time, however, the medical board has expressed that on examination of injured no scar mark nor tenderness at the site of injury no.5 of previous medical legal report i.e. the injury report dated 25.02.2010. Apparently this happened due to the delay in between the incident took place on 24.02.2010 and the injured was presented for examination before the medical board on 05.04.2010 and by that time the injury healed up. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant opposed the bail application. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, and keeping in view the fact that the injury no.5 has been held to be not responsible for fracture and that co- accused Kartar, who is stated to be author of injury no.5, has already been enlarged on bail, as per their case, on 04.05.2010, I deem it just and proper to release the accused-petitioner, namely, Suresh Son of Kishan Singh, on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.58/2010, Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur, for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 324 and 325 of the IPC, CRLMB6784/2010 // 3 // provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The bail application stands disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//