Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Rohit Pande - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Second Bail Application No. 56 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2024
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail to the applicant, Rohit Pande, after considering the lack of support for the prosecution case from the injured party and other witnesses. The court highlighted the importance of credible evidence in determining bail eligibility, leading to the conclusion that the applicant deserved to be released on bail due to insufficient evidence against him.
Fact of the Case:
Rohit Pande is in judicial custody under FIR No.343 of 2023 for attempted murder and related charges. He applied for bail after his first application was rejected. The FIR alleges that he fired at the informant and threatened him.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the injured party did not support the prosecution's case during the trial, stating he did not know the applicant and that the applicant did not fire at him. The State Counsel acknowledged this fact.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the lack of supporting evidence from the informant and other witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of credible evidence against the applicant warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for reliable testimony in criminal proceedings.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two sureties.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
Applicant Rohit Pande is in judicial custody in FIR No.343 of 2023, under Section 307, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station- Ramnagar, District- Nainital. 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. The first bail application, being BA1 No.2337 of 2023, was rejected on 12.12.2023.
4. According to the FIR, on 28.07.2023, at 2.05 PM, the applicant fired at the informant and his friends, and, thereafter, he left the scene of occurrence while threatening the informant to life.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the injured has not supported the prosecution case at trial, and other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case.
6. Learned State Counsel admits this fact.
7. 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.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. 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.
10. In the instant case, the FIR has been lodged by the informant against the applicant naming him as the person, who fired at him, but, when examined as PW2, the informant Sunil Joshi has said that he does not know the applicant; the applicant did not fire at him. It makes out two situations. Either the FIR is false or PW2, Sunil Joshi, is giving false evidence. Therefore, this Court leaves it to the trial court to consider to proceed against PW2, Sunil Joshi, the informant, if it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so.
The court established that a lack of supporting evidence from key witnesses can justify the granting of bail, highlighting the necessity of credible testimony in criminal cases.
Bail granted with conditions due to lack of injury evidence and claims of false implications.
Bail granted in murder case due to prosecution lapses: no forensic bullet-firearm link, site plan discrepancies, unexplained applicant injuries, absent cartridge recovery, uninformed local police.
The court established that in cases of serious allegations, the specificity of charges in the FIR and the credibility of the investigation play crucial roles in determining bail eligibility.
The court grants bail considering the absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody, and the potential for wrongful implication.
Bail granted considering lack of specific allegations, clean antecedents, and nature of injuries.
Granting of bail based on vague allegations and lack of specific details in the FIR, in consideration of the granting of anticipatory bail to co-accused.
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
