High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SAYAR RAM v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 2509 of 2007  RD-RJ 3326 (12 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B.CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2509/2007
(Sayar Ram V/s State of Rajasthan)
Date of Order : 12/07/2007
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P.
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary for the complainant.
BY THE COURT:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant.
Perused the order impugned and the police investigation diary.
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the modesty of the petitioner's wife was outraged by the complainant party and that gave cause for the occurrence. The occurrence took place on the path and the petitioner himself suffered the injuries in hand as also the modesty of the wife of the petitioner was outraged.
Learned public prosecutor submits that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he inflicted injuries to the injured Bhuri on various parts of the body including skull which resulted in fracture of parietal temporal bone of the skull and injured Bhuri remained admitted in the hospital as indoor patient from 26.3.2007 to 03.5.2007 for more than a month. He further submits that the petitioner not only inflicted injuries to injured
Bhuri but also to her husband Sohanlal who also suffered as many as three injuries; one of the injury is on left parieto occipital part and other on left shoulder. So far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the modesty of the petitioner's wife was outraged is concerned, at any rate, the injured Smt. Bhuri could not have outraged the modesty of another woman and therefore, according to public prosecutor it is not at all a fit case warranting indulgence under Section 438
I have carefully gone through the police investigation diary. The injury report and the report of the radiologist clearly show that the injured Bhuri suffered the fracture of right parietal temporal bone of skull and remained hospitalized for more than one month. In my view, it is not a fit case warranting grant of anticipatory bail merely because a cross case has been registered against Sohanlal and ors.
In this view of the matter, the bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.