Uttarakhand High Court
Neetu Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 July, 2020
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 281 of 2020
Neetu Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Opposite party
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA Holder for the State.
This matter is taken up and heard through Video Conferencing.
Applicant Neetu Kumar, who is in judicial custody, in FIR No. 619 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.
2. FIR was lodged on 26.09.2019. In fact, before it on 17.09.2019, a missing report was lodged at Police Station Laksar with the averments that the deceased Pankaj was missing from his house since 13.09.2019. On 26.09.2019, his dead body was recovered from a cane field. It was amputated into many pieces without head. The dead body was recovered at the instance of applicant Neetu Kumar. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 27.09.2019, a sickle was also recovered at the instance of the applicant, which was used as a weapon of the offence. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant.
23. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant; the motive is not believable at all; there is no evidence that the dead body allegedly recovered belongs to deceased Pankaj; there is no DNA report and also if the dead body was mutilated or putrefied, it is not shown by the prosecution, as to how it was identified. More so, when it had no head and it was in pieces.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the dead body of the deceased Pankaj was recovered at the instance of the applicant. According to learned counsel no other person was missing in the area, therefore, the dead body, as identified by the applicant, was that of deceased Pankaj. He would also submit that the Forensic Science Laboratory report with regard to the DNA profiling has not been received. State has taken time for it, but it is not on record.
5. The only evidence at this stage against the applicant is recovery of the dead body, which was amputated into various pieces/parts, namely, trunk, upper limbs, two lower limbs. The internal organs of the body were decomposed and putrefied as recorded in the post mortem report. DNA profiling report is not on record. It is stated that it is yet awaited. Though, according to the learned State counsel the soil testing report has been received from FSL.
6. Another piece of evidence according to the prosecution is recovery of a sickle as a weapon of offence at the instance of the applicant. But, there is also no FSL report with regard to this weapon to connect it with the crime. If, the body was badly decomposed, and was without head in many pieces, how was it identified? Was it identified on the basis of a body 3 mark? What was it? These questions gain importance because yet there is no DNA profiling report. These and many more questions are much relevant and would be deliberated at the trial.
7. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Neetu Kumar be released on bail, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
9. This bail order be forwarded to concerned Court as well as the concerned jail through e-mail also.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.07.2020 Jitendra