Uttarakhand High Court
Narayan Singh Sirkhal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 UTR 521
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1756 of 2019
Narayan Singh Sirkhal ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.19 of 2019, registered with Police Station Dharchula, District Pithoragarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the I.P.C.
2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an FIR was registered on 01.06.2019 against the present applicant under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. on the basis of a written report lodged by the informant, Smt. Nanda Devi, alleging in it that on 31.05.2019 at about 10o clock at night, her son Sumit Gunjyal was found unconscious near Ghatdhar Khotila Tiraha. He was shifted to District Hospital, Pithoragarh at night after first aid in C.H.C. Dharchula, who was not yet conscious. One Chandra Singh had a hotel in Dharchula. Chandra Singh had told her that at around 9.30 in the night, the present applicant had beaten Sumit Gunjyal and threatened to kill him and abused him. The applicant was granted bail on 02.06.2019 due to bailable offence. After release on bail, his sureties produced him before the concerned court with request to discharge their bonds. During treatment, the injured Sumit Gunjyal died on 14.07.2019 at Vivekanand Hospital, Mukhani, Haldwani. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 14.07.2019. According to post-mortem report, the cause of death was 2 coma due to intraocular hemorrhage as a result of blunt impact force to head. After death of the deceased, the case was converted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
3. Heard Mr. V.B.S. Negi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Kapri, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
4. The learned Senior Advocate submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated; earlier, he was released on bail and he never misused the bail and there is nothing on record against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the investigating agency; at the time when the deceased was admitted to C.H.C. Dharchula, the smell of the drug was found in his mouth, so, the injuries which are shown could have come due to fall; there are material contradictions in the statements of the so called eye witness Chandra Singh and the deceased, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'); according to Chandra Singh, the deceased and the applicant first joined hands and then the incident happened, while, no such statement was given by the deceased; the statement of the witness Chandra Singh recorded twice under Section 161 of the Code; the witness Chandra Singh in his subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code stated that one Shankar Singh was also present at the spot, while he did not make any such statement earlier; according to Chandra Singh himself, he drank a lot of alcohol that day; therefore, in these circumstances and due to contradictions in the statements, the prosecution story cannot be believed; the applicant is a resident of District Pithoragarh; he has no criminal history; the charge sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence; the applicant is languishing in jail since 3 the month of July, 2019; the trial is at halt due to the COVID-19, pandemic.
5. The learned A.G.A. appearing for the State opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant was a contractor who was hostile to the deceased and that's why the applicant beat him up, however, the learned A.G.A. could not refute the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate that there was contradictions in the statements of the deceased and the witness Chandra Singh and at the time when the deceased was admitted to C.H.C. Dharchula, the smell of the drug was found in his mouth and according to the witness Chandra Singh, he himself drank a lot of alcohol that day. The learned A.G.A. fairly concedes that the applicant has no criminal history.
6. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme 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 peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
48. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
i) the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;
iii) the applicant shall not leave the State of Uttarakhand without prior permission of the trial court.
10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 08.06.2020 JKJ/Neha