Uttarakhand High Court
Rakesh Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 June, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 2535 of 2020
Rakesh Nautiyal ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
With
First Bail Application No. 2537 of 2020
Mukesh Awasthi ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Prateek Tripathi, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since, both the bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are being decided together by this common order.
2. Applicants Rakesh Nautiyal and Mukesh Awasthi are in custody in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2021, State Vs. Mukesh Awasthi and others, in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Nainital. The case originates from an FIR No. 408 of 2020, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. 2
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, on 13.08.2020, at about 10:30 late in the evening, the applicants assaulted and killed the brother-in-law of the informant and injured others.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, in fact, in the incident, the applicant Mukesh Awasthi had sustained serious injuries, of which an FIR under Section 307 IPC was lodged and some of the witnesses of this case had also been sent to judicial custody. He would submit that the witnesses have already been examined during trial; there are great contradictions in the statement of the witnesses; there is no conclusive evidence as to who made the fatal blow which caused the death of Amandeep; it is also argued that the applicants are in custody for a long; there is no forensic report; hence, it is a case fit for bail.
6. The statement of many witnesses have been enclosed along with supplementary affidavit. What is most discouraging is that this Court decides these bail applications almost after two years. It should have got its disposal more quickly.
7. In the incident one of the persons Amandeep had died. One of the injured is Devesh Singh Negi, who is 3 examined as PW6. The Court would proceed to examine the evidence with a caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at the trial of the case.
8. PW6 Devesh Singh Negi, who is one of the injured has stated that the applicants and Mukesh Rana all assaulted them, attacked them. They hit with rod, stones and danda. PW3 Faeem is one of the persons, who was alongwith the deceased and injured. He was also beaten up. He has also stated that applicants and Mukesh Rana hit him and the deceased. Particularly about the applicant Mukesh Awasti, he has also stated that he sat on the chest of Amandeep and attacked on his head with stones, danda and lathi. Others were also assaulted.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the cross examination of PW6 Devesh Singh Negi, particularly to paras 15 and 16. In para15, he has stated that the assailants did not have rod and danda initially, but took it subsequently. This is what, is recorded in the FIR.
10. In para 16, PW6 Devesh Singh Negi has expressed ignorance as to why the Investigating Officer has recorded a part of his statement, which he never gave to him. 4
11. Learned counsel for the State would submit that it is named FIR. The bail application of Mukesh Rana has already been rejected. He also submits that many witnesses have already been examined during trial. They have supported the prosecution case. At the instance of the applicant Rakesh Nautiyal, a danda, the weapon of offence has also been recovered.
12. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants are not entitled to bail. The bail applications deserve to be rejected.
13. The bail applications are rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.06.2022 Jitendra