AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 352 words[I.A.(Cr.) No.428 of 2020]
Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsel for the State.
Hearing of this interlocutory application has taken place via video conferencing through which counsel for the appellants, counsel for the State as well as the Court were well-connected.
Present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants praying for grant of bail, during the pendency of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no witness has supported the case and no one has seen the assault. PW-4 has given the contradictory statement with reference to PW-5. Learned counsel submits that there was no intention to kill and, therefore, the case of the prosecution is very weak and guilt cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that there is a minor child, who has to be looked after and without parents it will be difficult. Learned counsel has further submits that both the appellants-applicants have already been in custody for about 17-18 months.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that most of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have supported the case and inconsistency, if any, are minor. Learned counsel for the State submits that PW-9, who is Investigating Officer of the case, has also supported the case. Evidence of the doctor via post-mortem also indicates the culpability of the appellants-applicants.
Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, going through the records on hand and in the facts and circumstances of the case, during pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1, Birdhi Devi, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-( Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Garhwa, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 288 of 2012.
However, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant No.2, Tipu Purti, at this stage.
Prayer for bail of the appellant No.2, namely, Tipu Purti, stands rejected.
Accordingly, I.A.(Cr.) No.428 of 2020 stands disposed of.