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 · 229 wordsDhirendra Mishra, J.—Heard.
This is the second bail application on behalf of the Applicant. The earlier bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 2.5.2005 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 589/05.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicants is in jail since 10.8.2004 and till date only two witnesses have been examined during trial. He has filed the order sheets of the trial court to demonstrate that the delay in trial is not occasioned due to lapses on the part of the Applicant.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the offence against the Applicant is u/s 304B of the I.P.C. and delay in trial is not intentional.
Taking into consideration the fact that the Applicant is in jail since 10.8.2004 and further considering the fact that even after a lapse of almost one year six months only two witnesses have been examined during trial, I consider present to be a fit case where the Applicant should be extended the facility of bail. Accordingly the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of Applicant namely Yawar Hussain executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trail Court he shall be released on bail.