Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant postulated that life imprisonment means 20 years of incarceration and not of 14 years, therefore, in the present case, out of 20 years of life imprisonment which is prescribed punishment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, petitioner remained in custody only for 7 years and in support of his arguments he relied upon one overruled judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Sangeet & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) AIR (SC) 447; Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (1961) AIR (SC) 600 and so also the judgments passed by the different High Courts in the cases of Ravi Patil Vs. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa reported in (2020) ALLMR (Cri) 808; Chacko Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 2 AICLR 49. It is further argued by learned counsel for the complainant that specific allegation has been levelled against him. It is also stated that requisite custody certificate is not produced by learned Public Prosecutor. Lastly, learned counsel for the complainant urges that benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner in the present case.
