Uttarakhand High Court
Sahil Khan @ Mauzam vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 March, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.2676 of 2022
Sahil Khan @ Mauzam ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Sahil Khan @ Mauzam is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 19 of 2021, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 147, 148 & 34 IPC, Police Station Tallital, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 14.04.2022, the applicant alongwith the co-accused did Maarpeet with one Nawab and when the deceased tried to save his brother, he was stabbed and attacked by the applicant and the co- accused. The deceased died.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co-accused have already been granted bail. It is a case of sudden fight between two groups. The applicant 2 also sustained injuries in the event. At the most, it is a case of sudden provocation.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is the applicant who has actually killed the deceased. There are injury reports and the witnesses have stated about the incident to the Investigating Officer. There is one injured witness Nawab also; the knife was recovered at the instance of the applicant.
6. It is a case of day light murder at a busy street of Nainital. Admittedly, it is a case of cross FIR. Admittedly, the applicant also sustained injuries. But incised wound which has been noted in his injury report is only skin deep. The injured Nawab has stated as to how the deceased was attacked by a knife by the applicant. Other witnesses have also stated about it. The role of co-accused have also been assigned by the witnesses. The injury which has been noted on the person of the deceased was deep in the stomach. In fact, an injury of size 5.5 cm x 2 cm was noted was back of right lobe of liver. It has gone in the stomach. There were other injuries as well.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 3
8. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.03.2023 Jitendra