IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.317 of 2011
====================================================
DHALO @ DALLO @ DILLO RAVIDAS/RABIDAS - Appellant/s(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR - Respondent/s(s)
====================================================
with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.448 of 2011
====================================================
PALLO RABIDAS @ PALLO RAVIDAS - Appellant/s(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR - Respondent/s(s)
====================================================
Appearance :
(In CR. APP (DB) No.317 of 2011)
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Purushottam Kumar Das, Advocate
For the Respondent/s: Mr. G.P. Jaiswal, APP.
(In CR. APP (DB) No.448 of 2011)
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Purushottam Kumar Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s: Mr. A.K. Sinha, APP.
====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
DATE: 29-06-2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA)
04/ 29.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the appellants
and learned Counsel for the State on the prayer for
bail of the appellants namely, Dhallo @ Dallo @
Dillo Ravidas/Rabidas and Raju Ravidas/Rabidas (in
Cr. App (DB) No. 317 of 2011) and Pallo Rabidas @
Pallo Ravidas (in Cr. App (DB) No. 448 of 2011).
Learned Counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the husband of the deceased, in
course of evidence has stated that the first
version of the victim was taken after seven days of
the occurrence and this is not the prosecution
2
case. It has also been submitted that son of the
deceased has stated that the statement was recorded
in the next day but this is also not the
prosecution case. The doctor has opined that the
deceased was not in a position to speak due to her
85% burn injury.
Her burn injury of 85% mentions the
portion of her body which were burnt but it appears
that the vocal portion which could narrate the
occurrence was not destroyed to that extent that
the deceased could not speak.
Considering the facts and circumstances,
presently, we are not inclined to grant bail to the
above named appellants. Accordingly, their prayer
for bail is rejected.
However, considering the fact that the
appellants are in custody since soon after the
occurrence, it is directed that if the appeals are
not listed for hearing then the appellants would be
at liberty to renew prayer for bail after one year.
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)
kksinha/-