AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1976-7-4
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on July 14,1976

AMARJEET SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.D.KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for bail under Section 428 Cr. P.C.
(2.) A case under Section 452, 307, 147 and 148 IPC was registered on 17 -10 -1974 against the accused applicant along with five others The prosecution case is that elections were held in the Dayanand College, Ajmer in those days and that there was tension between the two contesting candidates. The accused applicant along wish others was siding Purshottam while the com plainant party was canvasing for the other candidate. It is alleged that on the night intervening 16th and 17th October 1974, the applicant along with others went to the room of Gurdayal Singh and assaulted him when he was sleeping in the room His cousin Ram Niwas was also sleeping and was assaulted. It is alleged that Gurdayal Singh and Ram Niwas sustained injuries. An application for grant of anticipatory bail was also moved before the Learned Sessions Judge which was rejected on February 12, 1975. It has been contended on behalf of the accused applicant that the investigating agency is being exploited and that there is every reason of the abuse of the process. It was also contended that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated. It was also contended that the other accused persons have been released on bail or an order for anticipatory bail have been passed. The attention of the court was also invited to the affidavit of Gurdayal Singh dated 17 -6 -76 whereby he has totally denied the prosecution version. Attention was also invited to the affidavit of Gurdayal Singh dated 26 -2 -76 wherein Gurdayal Singh had also previously not supported the prosecution story. The accused applicant has submitted the copies of the statements under sector 161 Cr. P. C. and the injury, report by the M.O.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor was directed to produce the case diary. The learned Public Prosecutor stated that despite three reminders the case diary has not been received by him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.