Uttarakhand High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 November, 2019
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
Reserved on 19.11.2019
Delivered on 22.11.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1288 of 2019
(U/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
Vinod Kumar ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Aggarwal,
learned Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma,
learned Advocate for the complainant.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the bail application.
2. Applicant-Vinod Kumar has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime No.281 of 2017 u/s 302 and 120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.
3. As per the information given by the informant-Rekha Rani, wife of 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 a gunshot on her husband. On receiving the telephonic message, she rushed to hospital and found that her injured husband was giving the statement to the police about the names of suspected persons, namely, Vinod Lala, Amar Singh, younger son of Jagat Singh and three other persons. It is also stated in the FIR that earlier also, her husband informed her that Vinod Lala (applicant) was threatening to kill him through contract killer.
24. It is argued by learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and no offence is made out against him; there is no recovery from the possession of the present applicant; and he is languishing in jail since 12.05.2019.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned Sr. Counsel for the complainant, would submit that the deceased- Sushil Raghuvanshi was murdered by contract killer, in which the present accused has performed the main role; the deceased disclosed the name of the present accused before the police just after the incident; statements of two independent witnesses, namely, Pradeep Chamoli @ Bhaddu and Yogember Singh Negi were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, and both of them fully corroborated their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; and the present accused performed the main role to hire the contract killer for the murder of Sushil Raghuvanshi, who was a well-known advocate at Kotdwar.
6. In the present matter, the FIR was lodged against the present accused as well as other accused, namely, Amar Singh and younger son of Jagat Singh Negi. Earlier, the deceased had already disclosed his wife-Smt. Rekha Rani about the threat call given to him by the present accused.
7. As per the prima facie evidence collected during investigation, the offence was committed by contract killers; they were hired by the present accused; the murder took place when the deceased was going to attend the court; it is a case based upon the 3 circumstantial evidence; and the fact whether the present applicant had any role in hiring the contract killers or not, it is a matter of evidence.
8. Looking to the gravity of the offence, and also considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage.
9. The bail application is, thus, dismissed.
10. Needless to observe that the observations, made hereinabove, will not have any affect on the final merits of the trial.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 22.11.2019 Balwant