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 · 246 wordsI.A. No.4938 of 2022
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant no.2, namely, Shankar Chaudhary @ Badka.
None appears on behalf of the respondent State.
By way of filing this interlocutory application the appellant no.2 has renewed his prayer to release the appellant no.2 on bail after suspending the sentence.
Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The appellant was all along on bail during the trial and now he is in custody and the period of custody is more than five years. There is no likelihood of this appeal to be taken up in near future.
The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the above fact, we are inclined to release appellant no.2, namely, Shankar Chaudhary @ Badka on bail, after suspending the sentence, during pendency of this appeal. The sentence against the appellant no.2, namely, Shankar Chaudhary @ Badka, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with S.T.Case No.73 of 2007 (arising out of Rehla P.S. Case No.35/2006, corresponding to G.R.Case No.1347/2006), subject to the condition that he will appear and mark his attendance once in every four months before the Judge In-charge/Registrar, Civil Court, Palamau at Daltonganj till the disposal of this appeal.
Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed.