- (1.) THIS is an application (I.A.No.746 of 2012) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 14 days in filing the Cr. Appeal No.442 of 2012. On being satisfied with the grounds taken in I.A., the delay of 14 days' in filing the instant Cr. Appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.746 of 2012 stands disposed of.
(2.) HEARD Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and perused the Lower Court Records. Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi, Counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W. 14 projected as an eyewitness, is not actually an eyewitness; and that the conduct of the informant is unnatural; and that appellant was deposing in the court for the first time; and that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that P.W. 14 was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which will appear from para 83 of the case diary and that dead body and incriminating articles were recovered on the confession of the appellant Hemraj Nayak and Deepak ( declared juvenile). In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to appellant Hemraj Nayak in Cr. Appeal No. 442 of 2012. Hence, his prayer for bail is rejected. It is submitted that there is no allegation of assault against appellant Mukund Nayak in Cr. Appeal No. 390 of 2012(D.B.). Accordingly, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ ( Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T.No.317 of 2007, arising out of Palkot P Case .S. No.45 of 2007, corresponding to G.R.No.631 of 2007 during the pendency of this Cr. Appeal on the conditions that (i) one of the bailers would be the close relative of the appellant and (ii) other bailer should have landed property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.;