- (1.) Shri Rathore has handed over the challan papers to the learned Public Prosecutor. Arguments have been heard.
(2.) The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the only evidence available against the accused-petitioner is of having a fight with the deceased at a liquor shop. He submitted that there is no allegation against the accused petitioner of having intentionally caused injury on the person of the deceased. Shri Rathore pointed out from the postmortem report of the deceased that it is revealed that the deceased was in the habit of consuming alcohol and the fight between the deceased and the accused- petitioner is also said to have taken place at liquor shop. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Dalip Singh recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. Shri Rathore pointed out that it was the accused-petitioner who had asked Dalip Singh to take the deceased to his home and, this shows that the accused-petitioner had no intention to cause any injury on the person of the deceased which could prove fatal. He argued that Sec. 404, I.P.C. has been maliciously added by the prosecution because as per the letter written by the son of the deceased an amount of Rs. 5000/- which was said to have been taken from the person of the deceased,was found in the house of the deceased himself.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case of having committed an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and, therefore, the Court must not enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.;