In response, the counsel for the State strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that serious allegations against the appellant were made.
However, he conceded that crucial witnesses – two police constables – were not included in the list of witnesses and there was no application from the Investigating Officer or prosecution to summon these witnesses.
On, the Court observed,
“the Investigating Officer had failed in discharge of his duties as an Investigating Officer and so the Government Counsel, who had concluded the evidence of the prosecution and advanced the arguments, by not making an application under Section 311 CrP.C.(as the then Criminal Procedure Code) to summon these two witnesses. Court would not hesitate to say that even Trial Court also failed to summon these two witnesses.”
Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and without getting into merit of the case, the Court granted bail to the appellant.
“Let the appellant/convict be released on bail, during the pendency of present criminal appeal, on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of 250,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court,” the Court ordered.
Source: Barandbench
