Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Akeel alias Bhuttu – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1389 of 2024
Decided On : 28-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vipul Sharma.
For the Respondents: S.C. Dumka, Arvind Vashistha, Gaurav Singh, Preetika Dwivedi.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the identification of the accused and the nature of injuries are critical factors in bail considerations under IPC provisions.

Headnote:
Bail - Judicial Custody - IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354, 336, 427 - The court discussed the provisions of the IPC regarding unlawful assembly, rioting, and causing grievous hurt, emphasizing the severity of the charges and the evidence presented, leading to the rejection of the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody for allegedly attacking the informant's family with a sharp weapon, causing injuries and property damage. The FIR was filed the day after the incident, and the applicant claims no specific role was assigned to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite the FIR lacking specific details, the injured party identified the applicant as the assailant. Medical reports indicated serious injuries, and the court deemed the evidence sufficient to deny bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the severity of the charges under the IPC, combined with the identification of the applicant as the assailant and the medical evidence of injuries, justified the denial of bail.
Result: The bail application is rejected.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The court emphasized that the identification of the accused and the nature of injuries are critical factors in bail considerations under the Indian Penal Code (!) .
The applicant was in judicial custody for an incident involving a sharp weapon attack on the informant's family, causing injuries and property damage, with the FIR filed the day after the incident (!) (!) .
The applicant's counsel argued that no specific role was assigned to him in the FIR, and highlighted issues regarding the injury reports and the timing of medical examinations, suggesting that the case may be suitable for bail (!) .
The prosecution's counsel maintained that the applicant was responsible for inflicting injuries with a gandasa, and that the case was not fit for bail given the severity of the injuries and evidence (!) (!) .
The medical evidence indicated serious injuries, including a subdural haemorrhage, with expert opinions suggesting a potentially life-threatening condition, despite some reports indicating the injury was simple (!) .
The injured party explicitly stated that the applicant hit his head with a gandasa, which contributed to his unconsciousness, although this detail was not in the FIR (!) .
The court concluded that there were no grounds to grant bail, considering the severity of the charges, the evidence of injuries, and the identification of the applicant as the assailant, leading to the rejection of the bail application (!) (!) .

Would you like a detailed legal analysis or advice based on this case?

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 1108 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354, 336, 427 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. According to the FIR, on 24.09.2022, at 10:30 p.m., the applicant alongwith the co-accused entered into the house of the informant armed with sharp edged weapon and attacked various persons in the family, due to which, many persons got injured. They also damaged the property of the informant and threatened them to life. Police was called.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no specific role assigned in the FIR to the applicant, whereas the FIR was lodged on the next day of the occurrence. He would submit that the injured Husnain was admitted in the Roorkee Hospital, but till 12.10.2022, there was no injury on his head. The Medical Board has opined that the injury was simple in nature subject to neurologist opinion. He would submit that neurologist has also not given any definite finding. Learned counsel would also submit that the injured Husnain did not get a CT Scan done in Roorkee or Haridwar, instead he got it done from Meerut. It is cross case. The FIR against the informant and other was lodged ten days after the FIR in the instant case. Hence, it is case fit for bail.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant is author of the injury on the head of injured Husnain. The blow was done by gandasa (a sharp edged heavy metallic weapon). Learned counsel would submit that the applicant was referred from Roorkee Hospital to Doon Hospital, Dehradun for CT Scan, where CT Scan facility was not available. Therefore, the injured Husnain has no other option, but to get his CT Scan done from other place, which he got done from Meerut. It is argued that it is not a case fit for bail.

6. Learned State counsel adopts the arguments as advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the informant.

7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

8. Multiple medical examination reports of the injured Husnain have been referred to. There are many injured in the case. The reports have been filed. On 25.09.2022, the injured Husnain was examined by the doctor. He was advised for X-ray. In the X-ray report, a fracture was suspected subject to confirmation by the CT Scan. It is also the admitted fact that from 25th September, 2022 to 29th September, 2022, injured Husnain was admitted in the hospital and again from 1st October, 2022 to 12.10.2022, he remained in hospital, but till then, CT Scan was not done. The CT Scan was allegedly done on 14.10.2022 at Meerut which records that “Thin extra-axial hematoma seen in left fronto-parietal with subdural haemorrhage.” Based on the CT Scan report and X-ray report, the Medical Board opined that there was no fracture on the skull, therefore, injury no. 1 was simple. But, with regard to the subdural haemorrhage, the Medical Board also referred the matter for an expert opinion of a Neurosurgeon. Then Neurosurgeon has opined that “on the basis of the Radiologist report of subdural haemorrhage the condition may be deemed to be life threatening possibly.”

9. It is true that in the FIR, it is not stated that the applicant hit on the head of the injured Husnain. But then, it is well settled that the FIR may not contain every details of the incident. Injured Hasnain has categorically stated that it is the applicant, who hit on his head with a gandasa, due to which, he became unconscious.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

11. The bai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document