- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.10.2008, informant's 14 years old daughter went to ease herself in a nearby field at about 5 p.m. She did not return for sometime. On hearing a cry the informant( P.W.6) and another witness P.W.1 rushed to the spot where she was found lying naked and four accused running away. F.I.R. was lodged next day i.e. 13.10.2008. The Investigating Officer stated in paragraph 18 of his evidence before the trial court that after the incident when police went to the spot on 12.10.2008 a lady constable and some others were present,but no one disclosed the names of the accused. This statement of the Investigating Officer stands corroborated from the fact that a letter dated 13.10.2008, on record as Ext.A, was written by Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station asking for sniffer dog, saying that the deceased had been murdered by un-known persons.
(3.) THE prosecution's own case is that all the accused persons had previous enmity with the informant and were known to the informant. Non-disclosure of the names is not re- reconcilable with the prosecution case that four accused were witnessed running away immediately after the incident. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants above named, are directed to be released on bail, during pendency of their appeals, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III Dhanbad in S.T.No. 84 of 2009.;