Regular bail – Custody period – Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Unlawful assembly -- Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- It would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

Regular bail -- Occurrence is of 16.08.2017 and the postmortem conducted on 05.09.2017 – As per the medical evidence “the death could have occurred 5 to 6 weeks prior to the postmortem examination” – As per the statement of PW-8, no cause of death could be ascertained in the case – Petitioner is behind the bars since 03.09.2017 and there is no other case pending against him -- Case is based on circumstantial evidence – Even on 25.08.2020 when the co-accused granted regular bail, it was contended that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, 19 have already been examined – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2022