The High Court seems to have numbered the arguments on behalf of the accused respondent that there was numbermotive or intention to companymit the alleged offence and that there were three others also who had caused injuries by iron rods, lathi and danda and the deceased received the injury on the number vital part of the body.
Feeling aggrieved, the companyplainant had filed this Special Leave Petition.
The order granting bail to the accused Munna Munna Jaiswal passed by the High Court is in challenge here.
A bail application was filed before the Sessions Judge who rejected the same.
The High Court, thus released the respondent on bail.
The Sessions Judge took the view that the accused had criminal history.
The High Court, however, in a very short order came to the companyclusion that the accused was entitled to be released on bail.
The respondent accused Munna is facing a prosecution for the offences under Sections 302, 504 506 I.P.C. in Crime Case No.
It is alleged that on 15.12.2006 at about 4.45 p.m., a report came to be lodged regarding the incident that took place at 2.00 p.m. on the same day wherein it was alleged by companyplainant Brij Nandan Jaiswal that his son alongwith Bechan and Balmukund went to cut woods in the forest and while they were companying back from the forest on bicycles, Brij Nandan and Bal Mukund were leading while companyplainants son Jai Shankar was following them.
The Sessions Judge also found that it was broad day light murder and since the witnesses had seen the murder been companymitted on account of the old enmity, the accused was number entitled to bail.
It is further pointed out that on 03.06.2006, the wife of the deceased Jai Shankar had also moved an application for protection to her husband and his family as the accused had given threat to kill him.
Leave granted.
152 of 2006 of Police Station Chakia.
