Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Sachin – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
First Bail Application No. 748 of 2023
Decided On : 28-02-2024
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the applicant's involvement in the crime, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence against him and the reliance on circumstantial evidence. The court concluded that the applicant's presence was not sufficient to deny bail, as the prosecution's case primarily implicated the co-accused, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Sachin, is in judicial custody for alleged involvement in the murder of an 18-year-old girl, with charges under IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution claims that the applicant was present during the crime but lacks direct evidence against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was circumstantial and primarily implicated the co-accused, who had a relationship with the deceased. The applicant's role was not clearly established, leading the court to consider him fit for bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail given the circumstantial evidence and the lack of direct involvement in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the absence of direct evidence against the applicant is a significant factor in favor of granting bail, especially when the prosecution's case primarily points to another individual.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties.
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 confirmed by the statement of Kishan Lal. He has referred to the statement, as recorded.
6. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments made by learned counsel for the informant.
7. 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.
8. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is the prosecution case that the co-accused was in relationship with the deceased. He wanted to get rid of her. It is he, who took the deceased along with him.
9. The statement of Kishan Lal reveals that when the co-accused called the applicant, he, along with the deceased, went in a forest, where the applicant was made to wait and the co-accused along with the deceased went inside the forest, and subsequently the co-accused came out and moved out from there without telling anything about the deceased to the applicant.
10. 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.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. 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.
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
