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
5 paragraphs · 174 wordsH.S. Brar, J.
Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is a delay of 90 hours in lodging the First Information Report. The only evidence against his client, he argues, is that he made a disclosure statement before the Assistant Sub Inspector. Even the dead body was not recovered at the instance of the accused. The cause of death according to him as stated in the postmortem report is not in consonance with the prosecution version.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, Mr. Bishnoi states that the case is fixed for trial on August, 26, 27 and 28. 1991.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I consider it a fit case in which concession of bail is to be allowed to the petitioner. Without commenting on the merits of the case, I allow bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul.
JUDGMENT accordingly.