KHURSHID ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the State on the matter of bail. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though this appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for committing dacoity in the house of the informant, but it is the case of the prosecution that only three persons had come and committed offence and in that event one cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C.

(2.) FURTHER it was submitted that this appellant is said to have been identified by one Kaili Khatoon -the sister of the informant, but she has never been examined by the prosecution though P.W. -1, examined by the prosecution has identified, but from the evidence it does appear that he was not sure that this appellant had committed the offence as he has said that by passage of time, he could know that this appellant was the person who had committed dacoity and in such situation, much reliance could not be placed on the identification of this witness. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances, the appellant, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ - (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Assistant Sessions Judge -II, Latehar, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1983.