IMPORTANT POINT
The relevance of witness statements from a juvenile inquiry can influence bail decisions, particularly when they indicate a lack of specific involvement in the alleged crime.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant Prem Gangwar is in judicial custody in FIR No.182 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application has already been rejected on merits on 01.12.2023.

4. According to the FIR, on 23.05.2023, the applicant Prem Gangwar along with the co-accused attacked the informant and her family members. There has been specific role assigned in the FIR that the applicant attacked Naresh with the help of Daanv (an iron rod with sharp edged ends), due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. In fact, on 01.12.2023, bail applications of the applicants Om Prakash and Pawan Kumar have been allowed by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the bail application of applicant Prem Gangwar was rejected on the ground that he is the author of the injury sustained by Naresh. But, it is argued that one of the co-accused, who is Child-in-Conflict with law, had undergone Inquiry No.177 of 2024 before the Juvenile Justice Board (“the JJB”), Udham Singh Nagar, and in that inquiry, the witnesses have not assigned any specific role to the applicant instead according to them, the applicant alongwith the co-accused jointly attacked the injured. It is argued that this is a changed circumstance, in which, the applicant is entitled to bail.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would admit that after rejection of the first bail application, the co-accused who is Child-in-Conflict with law had undergone inquiry before the JJB and in that inquiry, the witnesses including the injured have been examined. They did not assign any specific role to the applicant instead joint role has been assigned to the applicant and the co-accused. But she would submit that in the trial of the case, the witnesses have again assigned specific role to the applicant.

7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

8. After rejection of the first bail application, admittedly, the co-accused who is Child-in-Conflict with Law had undergone inquiry before the JJB and in that inquiry, the witnesses have not assigned any specific role to the applicant, as stated, again in the trial of the case against the applicant specific role has been assigned. The statement of the witnesses recorded in the inquiry before the JJB has relevance. What would its’ effect? It shall be seen at the trial.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.