Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Sachin – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Applicant Sachin is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 235 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34 and 201 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station- Lalkuan, District-Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the deceased, a young girl of 18 years of age, left her house on 09.08.2022, but she did not return. A report was lodged by her mother. According to the prosecution case, subsequently, the applicant and the co-accused were arrested and at their instance, the dead body of the deceased and the weapon of offence were recovered from a forest.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant. He would submit that, as per prosecution co accused-Yamin was in relationship with the deceased, and it is he, who killed the deceased; in the recovery memo, it is merely stated that the applicant was accompanying the co-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the presence of the applicant is
In the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the crime, and where the prosecution's case relies on circumstantial evidence, bail may be granted.
The court established that changed circumstances and lack of evidence of threats can justify the granting of bail, even after previous cancellations.
The court established that insufficient evidence and the need for further investigation justified the granting of bail.
The court considered the lack of support from the victim and informant, along with forensic evidence, in granting bail to the applicant.
The court established that the nature of the relationship and the circumstances surrounding the allegations can influence the decision to grant bail, particularly when the victim supports the prosecu....
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.
The victim's lack of support for the prosecution case and her statement regarding the medical examination were crucial in the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The court may grant bail after considering factors such as the nature of the case, the co-accused's bail status, and the applicant's criminal record.
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.
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
