RAVINDRA SHARMA ALIAS RAVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is a second application for bail ; the first bail application having been rejected by Hon'ble A. Mateen, J., vide his order dated 14.2.2003, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 606 (B) of 2003.

(3.) IT would become manifest from my order that I was primarily prompted to grant bail to Vijay alias Sharif because he was in jail since the last fifteen months. Since learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that the incident took place on 1.11.2002, it is manifest that the said premise was factually incorrect because on 24.6.2002 Vijay alias Sharif had been in jail for slightly less than eight months. IT pains me that I was persuaded to grant bail to Vijay alias Sharif because it was incorrectly stated before me that he was in jail for the last fifteen months.