AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. (Cr.)No.5712 of 2022
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant no.1, namely, Pawan Sao, the learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
By way of filing this interlocutory application the appellant no.1, namely Pawan Sao has renewed his prayer to release the appellant no.1 on bail after suspending the sentence.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant no.1 submits that one of the co-accused has been granted bail and this appellant no.1 namely Pawan Sao is on similar footing. He submits that P.W. 7 is the owner of a medicine shop who has stated that the deceased has consumed poison which suggest that this appellant did not administer poison.
Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the case of this appellant and the case of the co-accused who has been granted bail can be differentiated. He refers to some paragraph of P.W.-7 at paragraph no.2 and 3 and the F.I.R and submits that the aforesaid witness has stated that it is this appellant who has poured poison in the mouth of the deceased.
Considering the aforesaid submission, the case of this appellant cannot be equated with the case of the co-accused who has been granted bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant no.1, namely, Pawan Sao is rejected and consequently, this interlocutory application stands dismissed.