SANTHU AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) THE petitioners are said to be accused Nos. 1 to 3 and are accused of the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 341, 302 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) THE learned counsel would contend that though the complainant claims to be an eye witness the same is extremely doubtful and further notwithstanding that the complainant was able to identify all the accused and narrate the incident to the police the police have not immediately arrested the accused and they were taken into custody only four days later and on the mere statement of the complainant who was said to be a close friend of the deceased. The deceased did not have a good reputation and he was alleged to be a rowdy element against whom there was several cases pending. Therefore, the petitioners have been mechanically implicated on the footing that they had indeed committed the murder. It is pointed out that one of the accused namely Jagga who was said to be accused No. 4 was granted bail by this court in Criminal Petition No. 1852/14 dated 5.11.14 and it is also pointed out that the allegations against that accused and the present petitioner were identical and hence by a parity of reasoning, the petitioner would also be entitled to bail. Though the learned Government Advocate would oppose the petition, given the circumstances of the case the petitioners are also entitled to bail on the same reasoning as was applied in the above petition by this court.