Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Parminder Singh Alias Pappi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
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
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
