HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No. 2415 of 2022

Gurmeet Kaur

….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….….Respondent

Present:-

Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna

Latwal, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder

for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Gurmeet Kaur is in judicial custody

in Case Crime No.128 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34

IPC, Police Station Khatima, District- Udham Singh

Nagar. She has sought her release on bail.

2.

Heard

learned

counsel

for the applicant

through video conferencing and perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, on 24.05.2022, the

applicant along with the co-accused killed the deceased

Kulwant Singh in a forest by cutting his hands and

breaking the other parts of the body. In fact, in the FIR,

suspicion has been raised against the applicant and the

co-accused.

2

4.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

applicant would submit that it is a false case; the

applicant and the informant had old enmity because in

the year 2021, the deceased had molested the daughter of

the applicant, of which a report was lodged against the

deceased. In that matter, it is argued that police has

submitted a final report, but on a protest petition, the

matter is still pending. Learned Senior Counsel would

also argue that, in fact, the deceased was a history

sheeter. There are many cases pending against him. He

was earlier issued a notice under Section 3 of the U.P.

Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,

1986. Reference has been made to Annexure-4, a copy of

the notice. This has been referred to argue that it reveals

that the applicant and the deceased had enmity. It is also

argued that this notice, which is Annexure-4, also reveals

that the deceased was a history sheeter, therefore, anyone

could have killed him.

5.

Learned Senior Counsel would also argue that

the Investigating Officer (“IO”) has recorded the statement

of a witness, on 29.07.2022, i.e. two months after the

incident, showing as if the person was an eye-witness. It

is argued that this alleged eye-witness is the resident of

3

other village. According to him, by coincidence, he visited

the forest when the deceased was killed. Based on it, it is

argued that it is a planted witness and he cannot be

believed.

6.

Learned State Counsel would submit that, at

this stage, the credibility of a witness cannot be assessed

by the court. It would fall for scrutiny during trial. It is

argued that the weapon of offence as well as the clothes

worn by the applicant at the time of the incident were

recovered from the applicant, which have been sent for

Forensic Science Laboratory examination and the report

is awaited. It is argued that Harjinder Singh is an eye

witness. He has seen the applicant and the co-accused

killing the deceased. He is resident of another village.

Even if his statement is recorded after two months of the

incident, merely on that basis his statement cannot be

discarded.

7.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is

not expected of. The discussion is being made with a

caveat that any observation made in this order should not

have any bearing at the trial.

4

8.

If the statement of any eye-witness is recorded

after some delay, it may per se not discard the statement.

The examination of credibility would still require to be

done.

9.

The record in the instant case reveals that the

parties had enmity. The informant, who is the father of

the deceased and the neighbours, whose statements have

been recorded by the IO, and which have been referred to

by learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, tell to the IO

that parties had enmity.

10.

It is a case of killing in the forest. The FIR only

r