DUKHAN PASHI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that though prayer for bail was earlier rejected on 3.7.2007 but now the Appellant has remained in jail for about 7 and 1/2 years and in view of Section 436(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure, he has practically served more than half of the sentence; and that P.W -7, wife of the deceased, who claims to be an eye witness is not the eye witness which will appear from the evidence of P.W -9 in para 16 to 19 and that P.W -8 also said that P.W -7 did not disclose the name of any person and that though prayer for bail of the co -convict Kishun Pasi was rejected on merit in connected Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 135/2007 on 8.3.2007 and then on 30.11.2007 but he was granted bail on 7.4.2010 on merit and the case of this Appellant stands on similar footing.

(2.) MR . T.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the State, submitted that in the order granting bail to Kishun Pasi on 7.4.2010 itself, it was indicated that P.W -7 named Bahadur Pasi and Dukhan Pasi (this Appellant) to have inflicted injuries specifically by 'Bhala' and 'Dagger' on the chest. He further submitted that P.W -7 cannot be disbelieved for the aforesaid reasons, and moreover bail of Bahadur Pasi was rejected on 11.12.2009 in connected Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 355 of 2007.

(3.) IN the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to the Appellant. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the Appellant is rejected.