Uttarakhand High Court
Rajnish vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 February, 2016
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.234 of 2016
Rajnish ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........ Respondent
In Case Crime No.221 of 2015,
U/s 302, 201, 307, 504 and 34 IPC,
P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar.
With
First Bail Application No.235 of 2016
Ajay @ Gullu ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........ Respondent
In Case Crime No.221 of 2015,
U/s 302, 201, 307, 504 and 34 IPC,
P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Shiwali Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent.
Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Sr. Advocate for the complainant.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Both the bail applications have arisen out of the same FIR, hence are being taken up together for disposal.
This Court has rendered hearing at quite good length of learned counsel for the applicants-accused as well as learned Senior Counsel for the informant Pradeep, at whose instance, FIR was registered as Case Crime No.221 of 2015, under Sections 302, 201, 307, 504, 34 IPC, P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar.
Incident allegedly happened on 25.05.2015 between 09:00 to 10:00 A.M. FIR was lodged on the same day, while Police Station is 18 kms. away from the spot.
The names of accused persons are Baljor S/o Ajab Singh, Rajnish & Aneesh S/o Baljor and Rajbeer S/o Nirmal Singh and deceased Sanjay @ Sonu, the brother of the informant Pradeep.
As per the prosecution story, deceased went to his agricultural field to spry the crops at the time of incident, he went to quench his thirst at nearby brick klin, where accused persons were waiting for opportune moments to prey the deceased, as the occasion arose, all the accused persons, armed with lethal weapons in their hands, got surrounded him and began to beat.
By indiscriminate firing, they shot dead the deceased Sonu. They took the dead body of Sonu on motorcycle of deceased himself and carried corps to their own home. Dead body of deceased was recovered from the house of the accused persons.
On the contrary, the versions of the accused persons are that it was deceased Sonu along with three others, namely, Sandeep, Mahek Singh and Sadu came to their house to kill Ajay @ Gullu and they opened the fire.
Two fire injuries were recorded in the medical report of Ajay @ Gullu, who was examined in the Government Hospital, produced by police constables of P.S. Manglore itself.
Applicants also strived to lodge the FIR but they could not succeed in lodging the same, due to alleged intervention of some local political influential leaders, whose reference finds in the order of Revisional Court dated 15.12.2015.
Learned Additional District Judge directed the Magistrate to re-consider the matter and to pass an appropriate order. This order of Additional District Judge was challenged by the rival party by means of filing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since, the High Court was not inclined to interfere with the same, so they were constraint to withdraw their application.
Ultimately, applicants could be successful in lodging the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 452/307 IPC against Mr. Sandeep, Mahek Singh, Sadu and Sanjay @ Sonu (deceased).
Although, much has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants but this is not an appropriate stage to mention all those arguments and reveal the opinion of this Court itself on such contentions, lest it may affect the merits of the case at the time of final judgement. One thing appears to be very peculiar in the whole scenario is that the place of occurrence has been varied in both the two versions and it is somewhat very mysterious how the applicants could bring the dead body of deceased Sonu making him as a pillion rider on his motorcycle and place the same in their own house to create the evidence against them.
Contention of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vashishtha as regards the rejection of the bail application of Baljor, who is the father of the accused Rajneesh and Aneesh, I feel that the rejection of such bail application by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is entirely on different footing and bail application of the accused persons cannot be in parity.
Applicants are in jail ever since their arrest in May, 2015. I feel it would be justifiable to enlarge them on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M. Roorkee.
Bail applications are accordingly allowed.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Vacation Judge 16.02.2016 Nadim