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
11 paragraphs · 207 wordsKURIAN JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
The appellants are aggrieved since their application(s) for suspension of sentence/for grant of bail has/have been rejected by the High Court. Their
appeals filed in the year 2007 are still pending consideration before the High Court. There is no dispute that the appellants are in custody since 2005.
On a specific query, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that there are cases involving the appellants
prior to the incident and the accused are otherwise facing trial in those cases.
We are also informed that one of the accused arising out of the same FIR has been released on bail by order dated 06.02.2018 passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 6482 of 2017.
For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the appellants should be released on bail during the pendency of the appeals before the High
Court. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed with a direction that the appellants be released on bail, subject to such strict conditions as may be
imposed by the trial court, in case they are not otherwise required to be detained in connection with any other case. Ordered accordingly.