Rajvi Roop Singh, J.C.
1. This is petitioners' application under Section 498 Cr. P.C.
2. The facts leading up to this bail petition are that on 20-5-65 Shri Sova Chandra Deb Barma, the younger brother of Sachindra Deb Barma lodged a complaint at 5-00 p.m. at Kamalpur Police Station against three persons, viz Mang Karai Deb Barma, Jamini Mohan Deb Barma and Kamdeb Deb Barma with the allegations that on 19-5-65 at about 11-30 p.m. while Sachindra Deb Barma was sleeping in the dwelling hut at East Debicherra. 10/12 persons entered the hut by forcing open the door and caught hold of him by pressing him down. They plugged his mouth with some clothes and dragged him out of the house and bound him with ropes. When they brought out the plug from his mouth he started crying, and thereupon they introduced earth into his mouth. Thereafter they started beating him with fist-blows on his mouth. On hearing his cry several persons came to the place of occurrence, and the accused persons on seeing them coming managed to run away. On this complaint the Police started investigation and arrested all the 5 petitioners on 21-5-65 and produced them before the S. D. M. for remand. The accused persons applied under Section 497 Cr. P.C. for being released on bail, but the learned S. D. M. rejected their bail petition. Thereafter, they applied to the learned Sessions Judge under Section 498 Cr. P.C. to enlarge them on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 9-7-65 rejected their bail petition. The petitioners have now filed this application to this Court to enlarge them on bail.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Advocate.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to frame a charge under Section 307 I. P. C He also pointed that the investigation is complete, and there is no apprehension of their absconding or tampering with the P. Ws. He further pointed out that the accused petitioners Brojendra Chandra Deb Barma, and Bhrigu Ram Deb Barma have not been named in the F. I. R. It was also averred that this is the proper time for harvesting Aus crops, and there is no other male member in the house of the petitioners to cut this crop and sow new one. If they won't sow the crop at the proper time in that case they will face starvation. In view of these facts they should be released on bail.
5. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, vehemently opposed this application on the ground that the offence committed by the petitioners is a very heinous offence. He also averred that investigation is not complete and if the accused petitioners will be released on bail, there is a chance of their tampering with the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge also while rejecting the bail petition mentioned these very grounds.
6. Now the sole question for consideration is whether the petitioners should be enlarged on bail.
7. In this case the complainant filed the complaint at the Police Station on 20-5-65 against the petitioners under Sections 458/459/307/325 I.P.C. Thereafter on 21-5-65 the complainant was examined by the Doctor regarding his injuries, and the Doctor in his report, has mentioned that the complainant has got some swelling and abrasions on his body. From this report of the Doctor it is clear that the complainant had no grievous injuries on his person. There is also nothing in the report of the Doctor to show that any of the injuries was on the vital part of the body. In these circumstances it cannot be said at this stage whether the accused persons have committed an offence amounting to Section 307 I.P.C. This is a question for the trial Court to decide Besides there is nothing on the record to infer that the petitioners will abscond or tamper with the P. Ws. The mere saying by the Police that the petitioners will tamper with the P. Ws. Is not enough. It is a common knowledge that in every bail case the Police allege there is a danger of tampering with P. Ws. and if the witnesses can be tampered with in this way, it does not speak very highly of the efficiency of the Police. Moreover, the general policy of the law is to allow bail rather than refuse it and bail should not be withheld as a measure of punishment, or for the purpose of putting obstacle in the way of defence. In this case, now it is clear that the Police has completed the investigation, therefore, the question of tampering with the P. Ws. won't arise. By taking into consideration the medical evidence, as well as other facts of the case as discussed above, I find that it is a fit case where the accused should be enlarged on bail.
8. I, therefore, direct that each of the petitioners should execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 and furnish a security for the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.D.M., Kamalpur. They shall be released on bail till the decision of the case.