( 1 ) RULE. Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P. , for respondent-State.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi, learned Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P. , for the respondent-State.

( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who has taken me through the evidence and the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge. The applicant-Dinesh was not on bail pending trial as he was facing charge of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, the applicant has been held guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) MR. TRIVEDI has attempted to convince the Court that there is no scope for prosecution even to argue that the applicant-appellant can be held responsible for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The quantum of punishment imposed by the learned trial Judge apparently looks severe punishment. It is also submitted that without entering into the merits, the applicant-appellant has fairly arguable case qua the quantum of punishment imposed by the learned trial Judge and considering the socio-economic background of the accused and the fact that both the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document