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
4 paragraphs · 220 wordsK.S. Lodha, J.—I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and also the learned Counsel for the complainant.
This is a third application for bail. The first application was rejected by this Court on 12-5-1987. By that time the eye-witnesses had not been examined. The second application was also, rejected by this court on 11-9-1987, because at that stage also, the position had not changed. It was, however, observed that all the eye-witnesses should be examined by the trial court on the next date of hearing positively. Now two of the eye-witnesses have been examined on 24-11-1987. The third eye-witness has still not been examined. Therefore, this fresh application has been filed.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned P.P. and having regard to the material on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
I, therefore, direct that the petitioners Pemaram, Allaram and Sonaram shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur for their appearance before that court on the next date of hearing and on all subsequent dates.