- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant nos. 1,2 and 8 and learned A.P.P on suspension of sentence.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that twice the application for suspension of sentence of all the accused persons have been rejected by this Court. But subsequently vide order dated 28.01.2011 other accused persons were released on bail and case of the present appellants are not different from the case of those accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the story set up by the complainant -informant on the face of it is unbelievable and drew our attention to the evidence of P.W. 6, 9 and 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also drew our attention to the other facts. Learned counsel for the informant assisting the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that so far as the appellant no. 1, Sitan Kumar, is concerned, there is direct evidence against him involving him in the commission of crime and the witnesses have identified appellant no. 1.
(3.) WITHOUT commenting on the merit of the case, we are of considered opinion that in view of the subsequent development and in view of the facts of the case, appellant no. 1, Sitan Kumar, appellant no. 2, Jhupar Singh and appellant no. 8, Gopal Manjhi are directed to be released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/ -(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Sessions Judge -II, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1990.;