R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) - Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner No.1 Mukesh Gurjar happens to be minor, and is a student of class VIII. His school is continuing. Petitioner No. 3 Sanwara is student of class X, whose examination have commenced from 25.3.2010 and will continue till 9.4.2010. According to learned counsel petitioner No.2 Indrapal, whose real name is Ram Kunwar, also happens to be student of class XII, and his examination have commenced from 18.3.2010 and will continue till 9.4.2010. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for interim bail of the petitioners.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that all the three petitioners are named in the FIR, and they were members of unlawful assembly. Moreover, regular bail application of other co-accused have already been rejected. Therefore, benefit of anticipatory bail should not be granted to the petitioners.
(3.) Considering the fact that Education is a right of every person, considering the tender age of the petitioner, in the interest of justice, a chance should be given to them to complete their education without any obstacle being created in their way. Of course, learned counsel for complainant has contended that the petitioners can be taken to --examination center in police custody. But this plea ignores the fact that prior to an examination, the student needs 'to study peacefully. Since our jails are not conducive to peaceful studies, it would be in the interest of justice to grant interim bail to the petitioners. Moreover, considering the fact that no specific overt act has been assigned to the petitioners, at the worst they can be roped in with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Therefore, they would be only peripheral accused and they do not fall within the category of main accused.;