Uttarakhand High Court
Surya Alias Surendra Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 June, 2020
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 162 of 2020
Surya alias Surendra Singh and another ....Applicants
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. 37 of 2019, registered with Police Station Gangolihat, District Pithoragarh for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 201 of the I.P.C.
2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that on 29.11.2019 at 23.20 hrs., the informant, Rohit Singh, brother of the deceased Mahendra Singh, lodged an FIR to the effect that in the morning of 27.11.2019, his brother Mahendra Singh went to Buddha Park, Tikonya, Haldwani from his residence, situated at Bithoriya, Haldwani, with his motorcycle, number UK 064-1804. Mahendra Singh was going to Jarmal village to attend his friend Narendra Jarmal alias Sanju Jarmal's wedding. The informant had boarded his brother in the taxi, number UK 04 TA-1516, for Gangolihat from the Old Park at around 8 a.m. The present applicant-Surya alias Surendra Singh was the driver of that taxi. The same night, at around 8 p.m. the mother of the informant received a call from Mahendra Singh who told her that he had reached Gangolihat. On 28.11.2019 at 11.30 hrs., it was revealed that Mahendra Singh was killed and his body was found on the motor road near the village Bhuli. The FIR was registered against unknown person. During the course of the investigation, evidence of last seen was produced that the deceased 2 and the present applicants were seen together on 27.11.2019, i.e. before the death of the deceased. Both the applicants were arrested. They confessed their guilt and their pointing out a bag, a purse, identity cards, mobile phone and other articles belonging to the deceased were recovered on 02.12.2019 from the taxi of the present applicant-Surya alias Surendra Singh and there was blood inside that taxi. The F.S.L. report dated 11.12.2019 regarding the blood, has been received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood was found to be negative.
3. Heard Mr. Amit Kapri, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Saurabh Pandey, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons; they have been falsely implicated; the applicants are not named in the FIR; any allegation has not been leveled against them; the deceased was died due to fell down on the stones and as per the post-mortem report the cause of the death of the deceased was head injury; there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicants; the deceased was attending marriage ceremony and it was quite unbelievable that any person had not seen the incident as alleged; nothing had been recovered from the pointing out of the applicants; the alleged recovery shown against the applicants were totally false and fabricated; there was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery; the deceased voluntarily consumed the alcohol and thereafter, went to the marriage by following a sharp and narrow roads of hills, therefore, the probability of accidental death by slipping from the hill cannot be totally ruled out; according to the prosecution, there were seven persons present at the spot but no one stated that there was any scuffle between the applicants and the deceased; there was no motive of applicants to commit the said offence; this matter is based 3 on the last seen theory; the last seen theory has facet of circumstantial evidence is a weak kind of evidence; the applicant Surya alias Surendra Singh was neither the driver of the said taxi nor he was owner of that taxi and nor the said taxi belongs to any member of the family of this applicant; the applicants have no criminal history; they are in custody since 02.12.2019; they are resident of District Pithoragarh; the charge sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence; the trial is at halt due to the COVID-19, pandemic.
5. The learned Brief Holder appearing for the State opposed the bail application and submits that the offence is grievous in nature, therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected. However, the learned counsel for the State fairly concedes that according to the test report, blood is found to be negative and the applicants have 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 applicants 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 applicants behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of 4 the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicants be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;
ii) the applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;
iii) the applicants shall not leave the State of Uttarakhand without prior permission of the trial court.
10. It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 04.06.2020 JKJ/Neha