Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Rohit - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Bail Application No. 968 of 2016, 1042 of 2017, 970 of 2016, 969 of 2016; Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2016, 221 of 2016, 222 of 2016, 223 of 2016
Decided On : 18-05-2021
Puspa Joshi, Advocate, Chetna Latwal, Advocate, Karan Anand, Advocate, Ashok Drall, Advocate, Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, J.S. Virk, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that strong prima facie grounds for substantial doubt about the conviction are required to grant bail in serious offenses.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Appeals - The court rejected the bail applications of the appellants who were convicted for conspiracy to kill and murder under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of I.P.C. and other related offenses. The court emphasized the need for strong prima facie grounds for substantial doubt about the conviction to grant bail, which was not found in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for conspiracy to kill and murder, and related offenses, based on the prosecution's case that they conspired to kill the deceased and executed the crime by strangulating and setting him on fire. The appellants filed bail applications seeking release pending appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the arguments of the appellants and the prosecution, emphasizing that detailed appreciation of evidence at the bail stage should not affect the merits of the case. The court concluded that the bail applications had no merit and were rejected.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants should be granted bail pending appeal despite being convicted for serious offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong prima facie grounds for substantial doubt about the conviction to grant bail, and highlighted that detailed appreciation of evidence at the bail stage should not affect the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail applications of the appellants, clarifying that the observations made were limited to the decision of the bail applications and would not affect the merit of the appeals.
JUDGMENT
Alok Kumar Verma, J. - These bail applications are filed seeking for bail in these criminal appeals.
2. These bail applications are decided by this common order because these criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 31.05.2016, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2013, "State Vs. Jogendra and others".
3. According to the prosecution case, on 20.02.2013, at about 7.50 p.m., an information was given by Gyan Kishore Chamoli at Police Station Ranipokari, District Dehradun that an unknown dead body was lying on Bhogpur Sungoan Road, which was half burnt and headless. A burnt skull was also recovered. The deceased was identified as Surendra Singh, husband of the appellant Smt. Rinku Devi, who along with her nephew Arun Kumar @ Vicky (appellant in CRLA No. 223 of 2016), conspired to kill her husband. A written agreement was executed by Smt. Rinku Devi, wife of the deceased, on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- in favour of the appellant Arun Kumar @ Vicky for that purpose. The appellant Jogendra Singh, who is uncle of the appellant Rohit, the appellant Arun Kumar @ Vicky and the appellant Rohit strangulated the deceased with a rope and put him in a stream, poured petrol and set him on fire.
4. After hearing the arguments of the appellants-accused persons, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2016, convicted the appellants Smt. Rinku and Jogendra Singh under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation. The appellant Arun Kumar @ Vicky and the appellant Rohit have been convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with default stipulation.
5. Heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, Mr. Karan Anand, Mr. Ashok Drall and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through video conferencing.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for appellant Rohit submitted that there is only one evidence against the appellant Rohit, which is the recovery of the skull of the deceased and that recovery is doubtful. Mr. Karan Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Smt. Rinku submitted that the appellant Smt. Rinku although admitted the fact in her statement; recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the said stamp was written by her, but, the said statement was given by her on the wrong advice. Mr. Ashok Drall, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Jogendra Singh submitted that the theory of last seen is not proved against this appellant. The F.I.R. Number was not mentioned in the inquest report and the postmortem report. The skull was recovered from the open place. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar @ Vicky submitted that no independent witness was secured at the time of the said recovery and the said burnt skull was recovered from an open place.
7. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt against all the appellants. The D.N.A. report also supported the case of the prosecution and the Patal, which was used in this crime, was recovered at the instance of the appellants.
8. At the stage of considering the bail application, a detailed examination of evide
