Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Parminder Singh Alias Pappi - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2386 of 2022
Decided On : 05-06-2024
BAIL - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the applicant's involvement in the crime, emphasizing the lack of eyewitnesses but the presence of circumstantial evidence linking the applicant to the deceased and the crime. The court highlighted the recovery of the looted vehicle and the applicant's mobile phone, which was used to book the cab, as critical factors in denying bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody for over three years in connection with the murder of a cab driver, whose body was found after he was reported missing following a booking. The applicant allegedly booked the cab and was present with the deceased at the time of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution presented sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the booking of the cab by the applicant and the recovery of the looted vehicle, to justify the denial of bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the circumstantial evidence against him and the absence of eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's booking of the cab and the recovery of the vehicle, was sufficient to deny bail, as it indicated the applicant's involvement in the crime.
Result: The bail application was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.401 of 2021, Sessions Trial No.1 of 2022, State Vs. Tanjil and Others, under Sections 201, 302, 392, 34, 411 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The deceased was a driver in the Dev Bhoomi Cab. On a booking, he took the car at 6:30 PM on 27.06.2021 to pick up the caller/passengers. On the same day, at midnight, at 2:00, the passengers sent a photograph of the deceased with the remark that the driver is asleep. Thereafter, the phones of the passengers as well as the deceased were switched off after 2:30 AM on 28.06.2021. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no eye-witness; the applicant is in custody for more than 3 years.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is the applicant, who, along with co-accused, booked the cab driven by the deceased. They killed the deceased and looted the car, which was recovered from them on 02.07.2021. The mobile phone, by which the cab was booked, was also recovered from the applicant.
6. It is also argued that, in fact, the factum of applicant using the car with the deceased is further confirmed by the entry register maintained by police at the borders at Dharampur Barrier, in which the entry of the deceased as well as the applicant and co-accused, as passengers, is made. Copy of this register has been filed along with the counter affidavit of the informant.
7. Learned counsel for the informant adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned State Counsel.
8. 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 proceeding.
9. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has shown that the applicant called the deceased from the mobile phone, which was subsequently recovered from him. The applicant and the co-accused took the deceased in the car. Their presence in the car is noted in the entry of the police register maintained at the border, which records that the applicant was also one of the passengers in the car. As per prosecution, the looted car was also recovered from them.
10. Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
11. The bail application is rejected.
Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to deny bail, especially when it establishes a clear connection between the accused and the crime.
The principle that bail should be granted in the absence of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, particularly when the accused has been acquitted of related charges.
In bail proceedings, the presence of multiple eyewitnesses and corroborative video evidence outweighed concerns regarding delay in lodging the FIR, justifying the court's decision to reject bail.
Bail may be denied in cases involving serious offenses where there is substantial evidence against the accused, particularly in instances of domestic violence.
The court considered the length of custody, lack of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of a delayed trial in granting bail to the applicant.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of circumstantial evidence and the seriousness of the charges, leading to the rejection of the bail application.
The court emphasized the need for prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge and the consideration of supporting evidence when deciding on bail applications in serious criminal ca....
The relevance of the accused's statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in considering the prima facie case against him in a bail application for a grave offence.
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
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
