TENT RAY @ TETU RAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties on the prayer for bail.

(2.) It is submitted that the Prosecution has projected P.Ws. 5, 6 and 10 as eye-witnesses but they are not the eye-witnesses of the actual occurrence and that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity and that there are several contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses and that the defence has been seriously prejudiced by non-examination of the I.O.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Prosecution witnesses are consistent and that the co-convict, Devi Mandal against whom there is allegation that he provoked the appellants to assault the deceased and who was on bail during the trial, also prayed for bail in connected Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 251 of 2011, but it was dismissed as not pressed on 06th June, 2011.