AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Sk. Zafarulla, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant. He submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 7th December, 2023 made by the Special Judge, rejecting his client’s application for bail.
According to him false application was made against his client on attempt to murder. Apart, alleged offences include, inter alia, under section 354-A in Indian Penal Code, 1860. The victim belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, relevant sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have also been added.
He hands up medical report dated 18th November, 2023 to demonstrate therefrom, it does not reveal any injury on the neck nor fresh bleeding from anywhere. Where allegation was of throttling to invoke section 307, no injury stood reported. He submits, impugned order be set aside and his client, enlarged on bail. He has been in custody for more than two and half months.
Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. On query from Court he submits, the victim made similar statements under sections 161 and 164 in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There were other witnesses, who also made similar statements under section 161.
Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2 (victim). He submits, investigation is not yet complete. Appellant should not be enlarged on bail prior to filing of charge sheet. Moreover, the co-accused has not yet been apprehended.
On query from Court there is no submission made disputing the medical report.
Considering the medical report does not say anything about injury on the neck on allegation of throttling and section 354-A is cognizable, bailable and triable offence, it cannot be said that keeping appellant in custody will not ensure co-accused is apprehended. The co-accused could not be apprehended in the time appellant was in custody. Reason given for rejecting the application for bail by impugned order requires interference.
Impugned order is set aside in appeal. Appellant be enlarged on bail upon furnishing security of ₹25,000/- by bond along with two like sureties, to satisfaction of the trial Court. He must report to the investigating police station every week till filing of charge-sheet.
The appeal is disposed of.
..……………………………