Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1258/2019 on 8 June, 2020
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
BA1 No.1258 of 2019 Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Kapri, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A., along with Mr. Balwinder Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.
Applicant-Sarveshwar Prasad @ Dabbu has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.281 of 2017, u/s 302 and 120-B IPC, registered at P.S.Kotwar, District-Pauri Garhwal.
As per the information given by the informant, Smt. Rekha Devi wife of the deceased Sushil Raghuvanshi, on 13.09.2017 at about 11:15 AM her husband Sushil Raghuvanshi, who being an Advocate was going to the court then all of a sudden two unknown bike riders appeared and fired gun shot on her husband. On receiving the telephonic message, she rushed to hospital and found that her injured husband was giving statement to the police about the name of the suspected persons namely, Vinod Lala and Amar Singh and younger son of Jagat Singh. It is also stated in the FIR that earlier her husband informed her that Vinod Lala was threatening to kill him through contract killer.
It is argued by learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in the crime and no offence is made out against him. There was no recovery from the possession of the accused and he is languishing in jail since 12.05.2019. It is also argued that in the present matter statements of star witnesses have been recorded. All other witnesses are formal in nature and most of the witnesses have been declared hostile. They did not support the prosecution story. He is ready to furnish the sureties and it is prayed that he may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the deceased Sushil Raghuvanshi was murdered by contract killer-- Deepak Maan and Deepak Sharma, in which present accused has performed the role also with other accused Vinod Lala. The deceased disclosed the name of the present accused before the police just after the incident. Co-accused-Rupesh Tyagi has also narrated the story in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police. As per the evidence collected during the investigation, the offence was committed by contract killer Deepak Maan and Deepak Sharma. They were hired by the other accused, in which the present accused is also involved. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and looking to the gravity of the offence, the accused is not entitled for bail.
In the present matter statements of 15 witnesses have been recorded. After the incident when the deceased was rushed to the hospital, at that time PW-14 Kishan Singh Panwar and PW-15 Akhilesh Ghildiyal were also present but they did not disclose in their statements that the deceased disclosed the name of the present accused before him or before the police sub-inspector, who appeared as PW-9 before the Trial Court. Although PW-9 Vinay Mittal stated in his statement that the deceased told him that he has suspicion on Dabbu. But the other witnesses did not give any statements against the present accused.
Even the FIR lodged on 13.09.2017 by the wife of the deceased is silent about the present accused. Before the incident, the deceased told his wife about the name of other accused but never told about the name of present accused, the accused is languishing in jail since 12.05.2019. Although the evidence of other witnesses are not 2 yet recorded but perusal of the statements recorded till yet did not disclose the name of the present accused directly or indirectly.
Having considered full facts and circumstances of the case, without making any comment as to the final merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant also deserves bail at this stage.
The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate concerned.
The present bail application as well as all the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
The observations made hereinabove shall not have any bearing on the merits of the trial.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 08.06.2020 Balwant/Sukhbant 3