Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Harjeet on 4 May, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
C-482 No.594 of 2022 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
The challenge in this petition is made to the proceeding of the Sessions Trial No.87 of 2018, State vs. Harjeet Singh and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC, pending in the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the case, an application was moved by the petitioner for direction to the prosecution to produce the Digital Video Recorder (for short, "DVR"), which was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer (for short, "IO") and which was also sent for forensic examination. But, that application has been rejected on the ground that DVR had never been taken into custody by the IO.
The impugned order has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that, in fact, para no.4 of the impugned judgment records the arguments made on behalf of the prosecution, which reveals that, in fact, DVR was taken into custody and sent for forensic examination.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that this matter definitely requires deliberation.
Issue notice to the respondent no.2, returnable by 26.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a short date may be fixed and the petitioner be permitted to take out dasti notice.
List this case on 13.05.2022 at 02:00 PM.
Petitioner is permitted to take out dasti notice.
Steps to be taken within two days.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.05.2022 Sanjay