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 · 247 wordsAlok K. Singh, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused record.
The applicants are involved in Case Crime No.330 of 2008, under Sections 302, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh.
As against the complicity of the applicants it is submitted that all the four accused happen to be real brothers. Specific role has been assigned to coaccused Rajendra Prasad and Bholu alias Mendra Prasad (both nonapplicants). No specific role of causing any assault has been assigned to either of the present applicants who are languishing in jail from 30.11.2008. It is claimed in para 27 that there is no criminal history against the applicants.
However, the bail is opposed by learned A.G.A.
The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the fact that no specific role of assaulting has been assigned to either of the applicants, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicants (Ravindra Prasad and Santosh Kumar) be enlarged on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned.