Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) I.A. No. 1881 of 2014
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , this is the second attempt by the applicant -appellant namely Uma Pado Dan @ Uma Pad Dan for concession of suspension of sentence as his earlier bail application was declined by the Court, vide order dated 2nd of September, 2013. Admittedly, the applicant -appellant was on bail during the trial and now in custody since the date of his conviction. He remained in custody for about six months during the trial as stated by Mr. Kashyap, learned senior Advocate. At the very outset, Mr. Kashyap, submitted that while arguing the earlier bail application, moved by the applicant -appellant and his co -convict namely Bishnu Pado Dan @ Bishnu Dan, perhaps, he could not render proper assistance to the Court viz -a -viz the merits of the case and that appears to be the ground for rejection of the bail of the applicant -appellant. He submitted that the co -convict Bishnu Pado Dan, however was granted concession of suspension of sentence by the Court observing that although the part attributed to him was of giving the Lathi blow on the person of the deceased, but in the medical evidence, injury by blunt weapon was conspicuously missing. Mr. Kashyap, thus submitted that he may be heard on merits once again to avoid miscarriage of justice.
(3.) MR . Kashyap submitted that in all there are three accused in this case who faced the trial, Krishna Pado Dan, the third convict has filed his separate Appeal and is in custody since the date of his formal arrest.;