Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Saurabh Srivastava - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No.942 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ms. Prabha Naithani, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Pandey.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail may be denied in cases involving serious offenses where there is substantial evidence against the accused, particularly in instances of domestic violence.

Headnote:
BAIL - JUDICIAL CUSTODY - The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the applicant's request for bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The court highlighted the eyewitness testimony of the applicant's daughter, which implicated him in the crime, and noted the history of domestic violence. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not warrant bail, reflecting the legal principle that bail may be denied in cases involving serious offenses where there is substantial evidence against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody for allegedly killing his wife, with charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The applicant and the deceased had a history of quarrels, and the applicant's daughter witnessed the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was substantial evidence against the applicant, including eyewitness testimony from his daughter, which supported the prosecution's case. The court noted the applicant's history of domestic violence.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail given the serious charges and the evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the serious nature of the charges, combined with eyewitness accounts and a history of domestic violence, justified the denial of bail.
Result: The bail application was rejected.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 45 of 2022, under Sections 302, 307 IPC, Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. The applicant was staying with the deceased, who was his wife and two children in Dehradun. The applicant would quite frequently fight and quarrel with his wife, but they would settled together. The informant is father-in-law of the applicant. In the FIR, he records that he would make his daughter believe that they should continue together. On 29.01.2022, the deceased killed his wife. The daughter of the applicant informed it to his maternal grandmother and had then told the applicant had also beaten her up and pressed her neck. She also talked to her on video call.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has no motive to kill his wife. The applicant and the deceased were married in the year 2014. The applicant and his wife were leading a good life. The applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law never complained of any act.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is a case of eyewitness account. The daughter of the applicant had seen the applicant killing his wife.

6. It is a 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.

7. The witnesses have stated that it is the applicant who would often beat his wife, the deceased. PW6 is daughter of the applicant and the deceased. She has supported the prosecution case. There are other witnesses also, who have supported the prosecution case.

8. 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.

9. The bail application is rejected.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document