Uttarakhand High Court
Dhannu Giri @ Rishipal Giri vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 March, 2013
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 1192 of 2012
In
Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2012
Dhannu Giri @ Rishipal Giri. .......... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ............ Respondent
Bail Application No. 1193 of 2012
In
Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2012
Yashpal Giri. .......... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ............ Respondent
Bail Application No. 1194 of 2012
In
Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2012
Ravindra Giri. .......... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ............ Respondent
&
Bail Application No. 1190 of 2012
In
Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2012
Prakash Chand. .......... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ............ Respondent
Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Swapnil Bisht, Advocate for the
appellants.
Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Asst. Government Advocate and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi,
Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent.
Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
All these matters are identical and, hence, they are being dealt with by this common order.
22. The First Information Report, which resulted in filing of a charge- sheet against the appellants, which, on being accepted, charge was framed against the appellants and trial commenced; was filed by the brother of one of the victims and the nephew of the other, both of whom died in the instant case. In examination-in-chief, the informant supported the prosecution story. In cross-examination, which was conducted about 1 ½ years after the examination-in-chief, he stated diagonally opposite to what he had stated in his examination-in-chief. Accordingly, in the appeal, the principal question that is to be decided is how far retracted evidence given by the informant can be relied to convict persons. The fact remains that, during this period of 1 ½ years, appellants were on bail. There appears to be no apparent reason for a person to say one thing at one point of time and to say exactly the opposite 1 ½ years later, unless something has happened to him in the meantime. We, accordingly, feel that, considering the said aspect of the matter, it would not be safe to grant bail to the applicants.
3. We, accordingly, reject the Bail Applications. Let expeditious steps be taken for preparation of the paper-books and, no sooner the paper-books are made ready, the same be exchanged and the appeals be listed in the weekly cause list on Wednesday when appeals of those convicts, who are still in jail, are taken.
(Alok Singh, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.)
20.03.2013 20.03.2013
G