Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively - are
concerned, it was argued that their names do not
appear in the F.I.R., but they have been
implicated on account of extra judicial
confessional statement made by the rickshaw
driver to the owner of the rickshaw. It was
argued that there is no supporting material to
bring home the offence as regards Applicants Nos.
3, 4 and 5. This position is, however, counter
by the learned A.P.P. relying on the recovery of
sword at the instance of Applicant No. 3 and
Applicant No. 5 respectively. It is, however,
fairly accepted by the learned A.P.P. that
besides the extra judicial confessional statement
referred to above, there is no other material
against the Applicant No. 4 - Accused No. 4.
If it is so, the bail application will succeed
only with regard to Applicant No. 4 - Accused
No. 4. The Application is rejected as against
Applicants Nos. 3 nd 5 - Accused No. 3 and 5 -
in view of the material on record about their
involvement in the commission of offence.
Accordingly, this application is allowed only
with regard to Applicant No. 4 - Accused No. 4
- on the following terms and conditions.
