Uttarakhand High Court
Amrish Tyagi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 December, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Original Jurisdiction
Dated: Nainital: the 14th day of December, 2016
I Bail Application No. 1724 of 2016
Order on the Bail Application:
CRIMINAL SIDE
Amrish Tyagi ...... Applicant
versus
State of Uttarakhand ...... Opposite Party
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Koranga,
Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, A.G.A. for the respondent State.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the complainant.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Applicant Amrish Tyagi seeks bail in case crime no. 70 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, police station, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application.
It is a case of cross version, in which the allegations against present applicant are under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Present applicant is not named in the FIR. One of the members of other side, i.e., Sonu s/o Baleshwar has died in the incident. The cause of his death was firearm 2 injury. Prince, who allegedly fired upon Sonu, is not the applicant before this Court. The members of both sides sustained grievous injuries. Such facts are not disputed by learned counsel for the parties.
Accused from the other side, namely, Johny, Dharampal, Mukesh Patil, Raj Kumar and Tinku @ Naresh have been directed to be enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2016, 17.09,2016 and 18.09.2016 because of the reasons indicated in their bail orders. Present applicant has been assigned more or less the same role. It is a case of caste conflict between Tyagis and the members of the Scheduled Castes. The report of the Director of the SC/ST Commission has also been brought on record by the applicant. The place of incident is the house of Satya Prakash, grandfather of Prince. Although, the members of both sides are alleging that the other side was the aggressor, it appears to be the case of free fight, in which, the members of both the sides sustained grievous injuries and one of the members from opposite side was killed, but it was done with the firearm of Prince, who is not the applicant before this Court. The applicant is in jail since last six months and has no previous criminal history. In the FIR lodged on behalf of Satpal, further investigation is said to have been going on.
Co-accused Sudhir Tyagi, Golu @ Kartikey Tyagi, Sunni @ Umakant and Sandeep Tyagi, with similar roles, have already been directed to be enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is ready to furnish reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court below, if he is granted bail.
3Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant should be granted bail on the ground of parity.
Bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
[ ( U.C. Dhyani, J. ) Dt. December 14, 2016.
Negi