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
8 paragraphs · 249 wordsI.A. No.2533 of 2022
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
No one appears for the State.
By way of filing this interlocutory application the appellant has renewed his prayer to release the appellant on bail after suspending the sentence on the ground that he is in custody since 03.09.2013.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no likelihood of this appeal being taken up in near future. He further submits that the informant was examined as P.W.8 but in his deposition he has not taken the name of this appellant though in the F.I.R he has named him.
The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the fact that the appellant is in custody since 03.09.2013 and there is no likelihood of this appeal being taken up in near future, we are inclined to release this appellant on bail after suspending the sentence, during pendency of this appeal. The sentence against the appellant namely, Lenda Aind, is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge–I, Khunti in connection with Session Trial Case No.20 of 2014, subject to the condition that he will appear and mark his attendance once in every four months before the Registrar, Civil Court, Khunti till the disposal of this appeal.
Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed.