ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Bhuvaneshwar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Judgment :
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court granting bail to Respondents 2 and 3 who were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC) and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the ‘Arms Act). Two other persons namely, Nirmal Singh and Shiv Janam Singh were also convicted in terms of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Four other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court. Respondents 2 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2004 before the Patna High Court in which the present appellant, the informant has also appeared. Though prayers for bail were earlier made during the pendency of the appeal, they were rejected on 23.3.2004 and 24.8.2006. However, liberty was granted in the latter case to renew the prayer for bail after six months. It was again made on 14.3.2007 which has been allowed by the impugned order.
3. According to the appellant, the impugned order of the High Court shows a total non application of mind. No reason has been indicated as to why the prayer for bail was accepted after same was rejec
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi AIR 1984 SC 444
Omar Usman Chamadia v. Abdul and Anr. JT 2004 (2) SC 176
V.D. Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2005 (7) SCALE 68
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 598
Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. (2001) 6 SCC 338
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. JT 2004 (3) SC 442
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.