Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Shankar Sharma alias Ravi - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 310 of 2020
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Bail Application - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 307, 120B, 34 - The court granted bail to the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with a case involving Sections 302, 307, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the evidence, including the ballistic report, lack of evidence regarding conspiracy, and the applicant's lack of criminal history, and concluded that the applicant deserved bail at that stage.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in connection with a case involving Sections 302, 307, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved a shooting incident resulting in the death of the informant's husband and injury to another individual. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy involving the applicant and others to commit the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ballistic report did not conclusively link the recovered bullet to the pistols allegedly recovered from the applicant. It also noted the lack of evidence regarding conspiracy and the applicant's lack of criminal history. The court emphasized that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the identification of the perpetrators, the alleged conspiracy, and the applicant's involvement in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence linking the recovered bullet to the applicant, the absence of evidence regarding conspiracy, and the applicant's lack of criminal history. The court also emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception.
Final Decision: The Bail Application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail with specific conditions to attend the trial court regularly and not to make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.138 of 2018, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 302, 307, 120B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that on 25.05.2018, Smt. Bhajan Kaur, the informant, was in her house with her husband Daya Singh, daughter-in-law Charanjeet Kaur, brother of her daughter-in-law Devendra Singh alias Labba, his wife Babbi and his son Happy. At around 11:00 in the morning, suddenly two persons entered her house and pointed a country made pistol (Tamancha) at her chest. When she folded her hands, they ran outside. They fired at her husband Daya Singh, aged about 63 years, due to which he died near the cowshed outside the house. Devendra Singh alias Labba was hit by fire, due to which he was injured. After inquest proceedings, post-mortem and last rites of the deceased, an FIR was lodged on 25.05.2018 at 20:30 p.m. The FIR was registered against the two unknown persons.
3. During the investigation, this fact came to light that the deceased had two sons. One is Jagtar Singh alias Jagga and the name of the other son is Meher Singh. Jagtar Singh alias Jagga’s brother-in-law Devendra Singh alias Labba had enmity with one Gurmukh Singh alias Gorkha. Devendra Singh alias Labba had to go to jail because of Gurmukh Singh. To take revenge from Gurmukh Singh, Devendra Singh alias Labba (co-accused) along with his friend Aleem (co-accused) settled the matter with the present applicant and Narendra Sharma (co-accused) for Rs.10 lakhs. One lakh was given in advance. Daya Singh was shot as per the plan, while Devendra Singh alias Labba inflicted a bullet wound on himself. After the incident, the present applicant and co-accused Narendra Sharma fled away on a motorcycle, bearing No.UK06-L 9443.
4. On 29.05.2018, the present applicant with a country made pistol 315 bore and a live cartridge along with three other co-accused persons were arrested by the police on a secret information of the informant. At the time of arrest, one empty cartridge was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Narendra Sharma.
5. One bullet 315 bore and one empty cartridge 315 bore were recovered from the spot on 25.05.2018. One bullet 315 bore was recovered from the dead body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem on 25.05.2018. One country made pistol (Tamancha) and a pistol 315 bore were recovered at the instance of the present applicant and the co-accused Narendra Sharma. At the time of arrest of the present applicant and co-accused persons, the said motorcycle was recovered from their possession. The bullet recovered from the dead body of the deceased, the bullet and empty cartridge recovered from the seen of the incident and the country made pistol, live cartridge and empty cartridge, recovered from the accused persons, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
6. Heard Mrs. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
7. Mrs. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the alleged crime. According to the prosecution, Sukhwant Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Sukhdev Singh had seen two persons running away from the spot on a motorcycle. Mrs. Sarita Bisht, Advocate, argued that these three persons are not eye-witness of the incident. These three neither knew the present applicant nor any process of identification took place. The applicant was not the owner of the allegedly recovered motorcycle. The said recoveries were planted.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State, vehemently opposed the bail
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the decision to grant bail is influenced by the evidence, including the lack of co....
Bail may be granted even in serious offenses if the evidence against the applicant is not compelling and other factors favor release.
Judicial custody without direct evidence or naming in FIR is insufficient for bail denial; co-accused receiving bail influences decision.
Bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception – Refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution.
The court established that bail can be granted even in serious cases if the applicant demonstrates a lack of direct involvement and if there are no substantial grounds for continued detention.
The court established that an individual cannot be detained without substantial evidence, and the right to bail is fundamental when the evidence against the accused is weak or non-existent.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance, not punishment.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception were central to the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
