Uttarakhand High Court
Parvej Alias Kallu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 July, 2020
Author: N.S. Dhanik
Bench: Ravi Malimath, N.S. Dhanik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 656 of 2020
In
Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2020
Parvej alias Kallu
and others. ...............Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. .........Respondent
Present:
Shri Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No. 161/2020.
Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned senior advocate appearing for appellants' counsel Smt.
Chetna Latwal in CRLA No. 105/2020.
Shri Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No. 128/2020.
Shri J.S. Virk, learned assistant government advocate for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravi Malimath.J.
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Hon. Ravi Malimath, J. (Oral)
1. This application is filed by the appellants, who are accused 6, 8, 9 & 10 before the trial court. The case of the prosecution is that the accused came to the house of the complainant at about 8:00 p.m. and started abusing them and beat up his son Istekhar. Thereafter, the complainant took his son to the police station Gangnahar and got his medical examination done at the government hospital, Roorkee. Thereafter, they returned home. At about 10:25 p.m., ten accused came to the house of the complainant, started abusing and beating him and asked as to why he (complainant) went to the police station. When the brother of the complainant tried to intervene, he was assaulted by the accused persons. The injured was taken to the government hospital. He 2 died on the same day. Based on the complaint being lodged, investigation was taken up. Charges were framed and by the impugned order, the trial Court convicted the appellants and other accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 452, 323/149, 302/149, 506 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days under Section 147 IPC; to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days under Section 148 IPC; to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days under Section 452 IPC; to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months under Section 302/149 IPC; to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days under Section 323/149 IPC; and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days under Section 506 IPC.
2. The present application for bail is filed by the appellants / accused no. 6, 8, 9 & 10.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are various discrepancies in the prosecution case. There are no overt acts alleged against the appellants. The medical evidence does not support the 3 prosecution case. If at all any incident has occurred, it occurred in the heat of the moment and therefore, the appellants cannot not be held responsible for the same. Hence, it is pleaded that bail be granted to the appellants.
4. On the other hand, the learned assistant government advocate disputes the same. He submits that there are five eye witnesses to the incident including the injured witnesses. They have narrated the manner in which the incident has occurred. The dead body was exhumed and a thorough inquiry has been made. The appellants herein were found guilty of the offences and were rightly convicted. Under these circumstances, he pleads that there is no error committed by the trial court that calls for any interference. Hence, the bail application requires to be rejected.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this application. There are five eye witnesses to the incident. They have narrated the manner in which the entire incident has occurred. Two of them are injured eye witnesses. The manner in which the incident occurred clearly indicates that the entire incident is premeditated. It cannot be said that the incident occurred in a fit of anger or otherwise. Due to the previous incident, the accused have assembled together with a common object and committed the crime. Therefore, the provisions of Section 149 of IPC were also invoked against them. So far as the other contentions are concerned, we are of the considered view that the same requires to be considered at the stage of final hearing. It 4 is not appropriate for the court hearing the application for bail to look into the evidence with a microscope at this stage. All these contentions would be considered at the stage of final hearing. Suffice to hold at this stage, that there are no good grounds to enlarge the appellants on bail. Hence, for all these reasons, the bail application no. 656 of 2020 is dismissed.
5. Post for hearing in the usual course.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ravi Malimath, J.) 09.07.2020 SKS