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
5 paragraphs · 183 wordsSandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that allegations made against the Applicants are simply of accompanying the principal accused.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that similarly placed co-accused person, namely, Babulal, who approached this Court for his release on bail, whose bail application was rejected by this Court on 21.02.2011 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1229/2011.
Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and, so also, considering the fact that co-accused person has been denied bail by this Court, this Court is not inclined to release the Petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of Applicants u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected. However, it is considered expedient to direct the learned trial court to first record the statements of prosecutrix and after which, the Petitioner shall apply for bail by filing fresh bail application.