2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 17923
HRISHIKESH ROY, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ
BRIJESH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11660/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.R.Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Ajay Yadav, Adv., Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv., Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv., Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv., Mr. Dhroov Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Swapnil Singh, Adv., Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR, Mr. S Sunil, Adv., Mr. Mohit Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv.
Court grants bail to the petitioner considering past incarceration and ongoing appeal status.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in relation to the Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 2022 against the State of Uttarakhand. The court notes the Compromise Agreement dated 01.03.2023 and the petitioner’s prior incarceration of 14 months under Sections 307 and 149 IPC, and grants bail while the appeal is pending. The decision emphasizes reconsideration for bail under the circumstances presented; hence, the petitioner is granted bail with conditions imposed by the trial court.
ORDER
Heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent-State of Uttarakhand is represented by Mr.Sudarshan Singh Rawat, learned Advocate. While issuing notice on 26.09.2023, the following order was passed: “Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.01.16 17:26:34 IST Reason:
Signature Not Verified would refer to the Compromise Agreement dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-11) to point out that because of certain misunderstanding amongst close family members, the shooting incident had occurred but the injured victim (Virendra) is also a signatory to the compromise agreement reached amongst the parties. The counsel next submits that of the 5 years sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the conviction under Section 307 and 149 IPC, the petitioner has been in jail for nearly one year since November 2022 and the family peace might be restored if bail is favourably considered for the petitioner while the criminal appeal is pending in the High Court. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. The petitioner is permitted to serve Dasti notice additionally, to the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.” Today, the petitioner’s counsel would refer to the medical testimony of P.W.5 to point out that the victim suffered injury on the upper part of the left back, which according to the learned Senior Counsel, is not on a vital part of the body. He, then pointed out that the petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years for his conviction under Section 307 read with 149 of the IPC and by now, the petitioner has been in jail for about 14 months. This can be verified from the Jail Custody Certificate dated 21.08.2023. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the circumstances in this case. As the Criminal Appeal is pending in the High Court and all other co-accused have been granted bail, we deem it appropriate to also grant bail to the petitioner herein. Ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the Trial Court. With the above, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (KAMLESH RAWAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
