AMAR DUTT,J - (1.) THE case against the petitioner and his co-accused was registered on the basis of the statement made by Ram Mehar deceased. Accordingly to him, he had been attacked by the petitioner, his nephew Ajmer, sister Ram Ratti and her daughter Saroj when he was going to his field on 10.5.2000 at about 10 a.m. and when he reached near the house of one Madan, all the accused were stated to have caused various injuries with their respective weapons on various parts of the body of Ram Mehar, who had ultimately succumbed to the injuries caused in this incident.
(2.) THE bail is being sought on the ground that Ram Ratti and Saroj accused are already on bail and injuries No. 10 to 12 attributed to Mahabir petitioner are simple in nature. Not only this, the deceased according to the petitioner was an accused in many criminal cases and thus he had many enemies and the petitioner and his co-accused have been falsely implicated in this case. In these circumstances, as the petitioner has been in custody since May, 2000 and the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, it is a fit case in which he should be released on bail. Bail of Mahabir petitioner was initially opposed on behalf of the State on the ground that in the post mortem report, the doctor had indicated that the death was due to haemorrhage shock and in view of the fact that over about 14 injuries were found on the person of the deceased which included the injuries attributed to the petitioner. It would not be proper for this Court to distinguish his case. During the pendency of this petition, statement of Dr. Kuldip Singh was placed on record for perusal of the Court and on its basis it was urged that since in the cross-examination, the doctor had clearly stated that the death was caused due to injury No. 7 on the person of the deceased. It was submitted that the responsibility of the petitioner in causing death of Ram Mehar could not be any more than that of Ram Ratti and Saroj co-accused who had been granted bail.
(3.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments and on going through the testimony of Dr. Kuldip Singh which is not being assailed before me during the course of arguments, I find that apart from indicating that injury No. 7 was mainly responsible for the death of Ram Mehar, the doctor has also indicated that he had told the attendant of the deceased to arrange for blood as he was going into a hypovolemic shock. For the purpose of bail, it would not be proper for this Court to dwell upon the merits of this part of the testimony of the doctor and it would be suffice for the present to say that on the record before this Court, at this stage, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had caused any grievous injury to the deceased, according to whom, he had been attacked on account of the fact that the deceased had teased the daughter of the petitioner in support of which fact the petitioner has also produced the affidavit of Rajesh, nephew of Ram Mehar deceased.;