Uttarakhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Kashyap vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2020
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1547 of 2019
Rajesh Kumar Kashyap .........Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ...........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prince Chauhan, with Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned Advocates for the applicant are present.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandy, learned A.G.A. and Mrs. Meena Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand are present.
With
First Bail Application No. 2059 of 2019
Manoj Singh .........Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ...........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned Advocate for the applicant is present. Mr. Pratiroop Pandy, learned A.G.A. and Mrs. Meena Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand are present.
With
First Bail Application No. 2176 of 2019
Gurvinder Singh .........Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ...........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned Advocate for the applicant is present. Mr. Pratiroop Pandy, learned A.G.A. and Mrs. Meena Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand are present.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J The First Bail Application No. 1547 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Rajesh Kumar Kashyap for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 0086 of 2019, registered with Police Station, Gadarpur, 2 District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. The First Bail Application No. 2059 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of accused/applicant Manoj Singh for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.0086 of 2019, registered with Police Station, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 302, 307, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. The First Bail Application No. 2176 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of accused/applicant Gurvinder Singh for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.0086 of 2019, registered with Police Station, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 302, 307, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. These bail applications are arose in the same F.I.R. No. 0086 of 2019, therefore, for deciding these bail applications, all these three bail applications are consolidated.
5. An F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Smt. Premo Kaur on 04.05.2019 at 16:30 p.m. with the allegations that Ranjit Singh, husband of the informant, was murdered by the applicant/accused Rajesh Kumar Kashyap and this information was given by one Gurmit alias Jitta to her on 03.05.2019, that when Gurmit alias Jitta and husband of the informant went for fishing, Forest Guard-Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, applicant in Bail Application No. 1547 of 2019, along with Gurvinder Singh, applicant in Bail Application No. 2176 3 of 2019, called Jitta and husband of the informant to stop. When these people did not stop, then the applicant Rajesh fired on the husband of the informant. The case of prosecution is that a country made gun was recovered from the possession of the applicant-Rajesh Kumar Kashyap on 05.05.2019.
6. Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant Rajesh Kumar Kashyap submits that the applicant is innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; there was no motive of murder; the applicant is Forest Guard and he was doing his duty with responsibility; the wood mafia was planting to implicate the applicant in a false matter; the wood mafia falsely implicated the applicant/accused.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant Manoj Singh and Gurvinder Singh submits that the applicants are innocent; they are falsely implicated; no articles were recovered from the possession of these applicants; applicant Manoj is not named in the F.I.R.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants in these bail applications submit that the said eye witness Gurmit Singh alias Jitta, from whom the information was given to the wife of the deceased as stated in the F.I.R., is examined in the trial as PW-2 before the trial Court but he didn't support the prosecution and he was declared hostile. In the investigation, it was found that the applicant Rajesh Kumar Kashyap was taken on the boat by Mr. Gaya Prasad and Mishri Lal. These two persons, namely, Gaya Prasad and Mishri Lal chased the boat of the deceased and thereafter the applicant/co-accused 4 Rajesh Kumar Kashyap fired on the deceased and the applicant Rajesh Kumar Kashyap was aided by the applicants Manoj Singh and Gurvinder Singh by providing him a gun and bullets.
10. The learned counsel for the applicants further submit that the applicants are facing trial and in trial, all these witnesses, namely, Gurmit alias Jitta, PW-2, Gaya Prasad, PW3 and Mishri Lal, PW-4 did not support the prosecution case. The learned counsel for applicants further submit that the applicant Rajesh Kumar Kashyap is in judicial custody since 05.05.2019 and the remaining applicants/accused are in judicial custody since 21.08.2019 and there are no criminal history of the applicants.
11. The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail applications, however, the learned counsel for the State admits that these witnesses, who were eye witnesses, didn't support the prosecution case.
12. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011)1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. The applicants are in judicial custody since long time and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicants behind the bar for an indefinite period.
514. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this stage.
15. The bail applications are allowed.
16. Let the applicants be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, by each of them, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 24.02.2020 NEHA