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
7 paragraphs · 197 wordsManoj Kumar Garg, J
This is third bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The second bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 25.07.2023 and after dismissal of the second bail application, only one witness namely Moolaram has been examined before the trial court as PW-4.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the statement of Moolaram (PW-4), he was present at the time of recovery, but he did not recognize any of the accused. The accused-petitioner is inside the jail since long and trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Therefore, benefit of bail should be granted to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the third bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the material available on record.
The second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 25.07.2023 and after dismissal of the second bail application, only one witness namely Moolaram has been examined as PW-4. So, there is no change of circumstances. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, the third bail application is hereby dismissed.