RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. - (1.) THESE bail applications have been filed in respect of Crime No. 204/93, Police Station, Lohana, District-Banswara wherein after investigation a challan has been filed in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Gadi for the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 302, 149 & 120-B I. P. C. against the petitioners. Since all these bail applications pertain to the same incident these are being decided by this common order.
(2.) IT appears that Ranvir Singh, who is Administrator-cum-Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Talwad and who is originally resident of village Jaansath District Mujjfarnagar (U. P.) and is now residing in Sareri Badi, lodged a written report on 17. 6. 1993 at 8. 20 a. m. , wherein he alleged that on 16. 6. 1993 at about 8 p. m. near the Bus Stand of Sareri Badi, 60-70 boys asked his tractor driver to go to village Partapur, because they wanted to lodge a complaint in the R. S. E. B. Office for restoring their power supply in the village. The driver of the tractor refused to oblige them, thereupon those persons called Ranvir Singh, who stated that since the tractor was out of order, the tractor will not go Partapur. This infuriated those persons and thereupon petitioner Jagdish slapped Ranvir Singh. IT was further alleged in the F. I. R. that thereupon Ranvir Singh came to his house and assembled the villagers. Those villagers waited for those persons, who had gone to village Partapur on another tractor belonging to Ishwar Singh, but they did not return till mid night. Thereupon the villagers dispersed and assured Ranvir Singh that they will settle the matter in the morning. IT was further mentioned in the F. I. R. that Ranvir Singh came to his house, where he found two persons, Thakur by caste namely Amar Singh and another person whom he could not recognize Those Thakurs told him that they had come for hunting and requested him to permit them to sleep in his house. IT was also mentioned in the F. I. R. that on 17. 6. 1993 at about 5. 00 a. m. informant Ranvir Singh was awakened by the shouts of the villagers that dacoits have come to the village. He also saw that about 1000 villagers were chasing those two Thakurs, namely Amar Singh and Virendra Singh, they took shelter in his house and went up stairs this house. The villagers also followed them and few of the villagers went on the roof of his house. IT was also mentioned in the F. I. R. that thereupon Amar Singh, who had a revolver with him, jumped down from the roof of his house and ran towards the village pond, that some of the villagers chased Amar Singh and caught hold of him near the pond and that they belnobourcd him with lathis and stones. Amar Singh fired the pistol towards the villagers. Ranvir Singh also mentioned in his F. I. R. that he did not know whether by the pistol shot fired by Amar Singh any person was injured or not. Amar Singh died on the spot and that the villagers dragged the dead body of Amar Singh and placed the same in-front of his house. In the F. I. R. it was also mentioned that his sons Ravindra Singh, Kavi Raj Singh and wife Smt. Satyawati had also witnessed the said occurrence from the roof of their house. IT was also mentioned specifically in the F. I. R. that the mob of the villagers consisted of about 1500-2000 people and that it could not be ascertained as to who had caused injuries to Amar Singh However, on the interrogation made by the S. H. O. , Ranvir Singh named petitioners Suresh, Mukesh, Vipin, Jagdish, Bharat & Heera Lal and told that they were the persons, who had led the said' mob. The doctor, Who conducted the post-mortem examination of Amar Singh found as many as 22 injuries on his body. The doctor opined that the cause of death was shock & haemorrhage due to head injuries. IT may be mentioned here that the doctor conducted the postmortem on 17. 6. 1993 at 10. 30 a. m. and he was of the opinion that the death of Amar Singh had occurred between 6 to 12 hours approximately from the time of examination This time works out to from 10. 30 p. m. to 4. 30 a. m. in the night intervening 16. 6. 1993 & 17. 6. 1993. Virendra Singh, the another Thakur also sustained injuries detailed in the M. L. R. which included a fracture in right arm. His other injuries were simple. This is also an admitted fact that petitioner Suresh also lodged a written report on 17. 6. 1993 at 7. 15 a. m. at Police Station, Loharia, wherein it was mentioned that Ranvir Singh had formed a gang, that last year he had brought certain persons from U. P. and tried to commit dacoity in the village. It was also mentioned therein that in the night of 16. 6. 1993,' Ranvir Singh along with his sons Ravindra Singh & Kavi Raj Singh, had called certain professional criminals, who had fire arms, that they entered in the village, that near the temple, they fired gun shots and that thereafter they caused injuries to Kuria Gujrati Patidar. It was also mentioned that there upon the villagers assembled and pursued those dacoits, who fired towards them, which caused injuries to Ram Lal Jogi. Thereafter those persons entered into the house of Ranvir Singh. On that report Crime No 202/93 for the offices under sections 147, 148, 386, 323, 307 & 149 IPC was registered. During arguments it has been reported that said Ram Lal Jogi who was admitted in the Hospital has now expired. The learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that initially none of the petitioners was named in the F. I. R that thereafter on interrogation by the S. H. O. , names of six petitioners were mentioned as the persons who had led the mob and that during the statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P,c,, the names of other three petitioners namely Gauri Shankar, Jagdish son of Mani Shankar & Gitish Chandra have been introduced. They have submitted that Crime No. 202/93 was registered on the report of petitioner Suresh earlier and that to counter blast that case Ranvir Singh has subsequently lodged this F I. R. , that the complainant party was the aggressor, that no specific act regarding inflicting injuries to Amar Singh and Virendra Singh has been assigned/attributed to any of the petitioners and that all the witnesses have given omnibus statements to the effect that the petitioners were leading the said mob consisting of 1500-2000 villagers. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri D. S. Shishodia, Senior Advocate for the complainant have opposed these applications on the ground that it was not possible to assign the specific overt act of the persons, who had belaboured Amar Singh, because the mob consisting of thousands of persons, but since the petitioners had a grudge with the infor-mant Ranvir Singh and they were leading the said mob, it is not a fit case wherein petitioners should be released on bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions This is an admitted fact that regarding the alleged occurrence two cross cases have been registered wherein F. I. R. lodged by petitioner Suresh is first in time As per statement of Kavi Raj Singh recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. all the 9 petitioners had gone to the roof of the house of Ranvir Singh but none of the witnesses has stated that the petitioners had either jumped down or came down from the roof of Ranvir Singh and had chased Amar Singh who had jumped down from the roof in order to save himself. The names of the petitioners were not initially mentioned in the F. I. R. The alleged recoveries of the lathis at these instance of the petitioners are not blood-stained No specific act has been attributed/assigned to the petitioners except that they were leading the mob. The petitioners are under detention since 18. 6. 1993 and the trial of this case is likely to take considerable time.
(3.) THEREFORE, keeping in view all the relevant facts & circumstances of the case, I allow these bail applications and order that petitioners (1) Gauri Shankar, (2) Jagdish Chandra son of Mani Shankar, (3) Girish Chandra, (4) Suresh Chandra, (5) Mukesh, (6) Vipin Behari, (7) Jagdish Chandra S/o Natwar Lal Pathak, (8) Heera Lal & (9}bharat be released on bail provided each one of them executes his personal bond for an amount of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. ten thousand) and furnishes one sound and substantial surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara for his regular appearance before him in the connected Sessions Case on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so. Each of the petitioner shall also give a written under-taking to the effect that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during the trial of the Sessions Case. .;