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
9 paragraphs · 302 words@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
Petitioners undertake to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within one month of resumption of normal functioning of the Court. Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.
Accordingly, the application being CRAN 3889 of 2020 is disposed of.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a free fight between the parties.
Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the victim suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized.
Having considered the materials on record disclosing prima facie involvement of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in the alleged offence and in view of the gravity of the injuries suffered by the victim, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9.
However, keeping in mind the extent of complicity of petitioner Nos.8 and 10, who are the womenfolk of the family, in the alleged crime and as the possibility of their false implication due to pre- existing enmity cannot be wholly ruled out, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.8 and 10.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner Nos.8 and 10 namely (8) Zurena @ Jarina Khatun and (10) Gulsan be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. The parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this court.