CRLA/249/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 1434 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                           AT NAINITAL


     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH
                          CHAUHAN

                                   AND

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK


             CRMA BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1640 OF 2020

                                    IN

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 249 OF 2020



                          9TH APRIL, 2021
   Between:

   Naresh Chandra Jauhari                             ...Appellant.

   and

   State of Uttarakhand                           ...Respondent
   Counsel for the appellant:            Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal,
                                         learned Senior Counsel,
                                         assisted by Mr. Xitij
                                         Kaushik,        learned
                                         counsel     for     the
                                         appellant.

   Counsel for the respondent            :Mr. J.S. Virk, learned
                                         Deputy         Advocate
                                         General for the State of
                                         Uttarakhand.
                                         Mr.   Bhuwan      Bhatt,
                                         learned counsel for the
                                         complainant.

   The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

          Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant, has raised the following

contentions before his Court:-


                                     1
         Firstly,   the   allegations        against   the   present

appellant is that he had interpolated the NCR filed by Mr.

Nitin Gupta (P.W. 2) with regard to the incident that had

allegedly taken place on 25.05.1996.             According to the

prosecution, in the NCR, Mr. Nitin Gupta (P.W. 2) had

stated that Mr. Vivek Khanna alias Jugla was an eye-

witness.    However, on 01.06.1996, Mr. Pankaj Khanna

alias Bugla was killed by certain accused persons.

According to the prosecution, since the main accused of

the alleged murder was one Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, in

order to save the skin of Mr. Bhardwaj, the present

appellant   had    interpolated       the    name     "Jugla",   and

converted into name "Bulga".            This interpolation was

carried out in order to create an impression that Pankaj

Khanna alias Bugla has been eliminated by the accused

persons as he was an eye-witness in the NCR filed by Mr.

Nitin Gupta (P.W. 2).


        Secondly, even if the case of the prosecution

were to be taken as the gospel truth, for the sake of

argument, even then the case against the present

appellant does not travel beyond the offences under

Sections 217 and 218 IPC. But, by no stretch of

imagination, can it be said that such an interpolation

would indicate, even remotely, that the appellant had



                                  2
 conspired with other accused persons in order to commit

murder of Pankaj Khanna alias Bugla. Hence, the entire

conviction is highly misplaced. Therefore, the appellant

deserves to be enlarged on bail.



2.       On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned

Deputy Advocate General for the State, and Mr. Bhuwan

Bhatt, the learned counsel for the complainant, submit

that the NCR was lodged by Mr. Nitin Gupta (P.W. 2)

with regard to the alleged incident of 25.05.1996 and the

FIR was registered on 01.06.1996 at 08:20 PM. Twenty-

five minutes later, Pankaj Khanna alias Bugla was

murdered by the accused persons.        Consequently, Mr.

Vivek Khanna (P.W. 1) lodged an FIR, namely, FIR No.

71/96, on 01.06.1996, at 08:45 PM.       According to the

learned counsel, in order to protect Mr. Bhardwaj, it is

the present appellant, who had carried out interpolation

in the NCR. Moreover, the learned counsel would have

the Court believe that the present appellant was part and

parcel of the conspiracy to kill Pankaj Khanna alias

Bugla.   Therefore,   both   the   learned   counsel   have

vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the appellant.


5.       Without expressing any opinion on the merits

and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant



                              3
 bail to the accused, namely, Naresh Chandra Jauhari,

S/o late Ganga Deen Sahayak, R/o Mohalla Mani Das,

Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh),

provided he submits a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees Thirty Thousand), and two sureties of the same

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. He

is further directed to observe the following conditions:


               i.   The applicant shall maintain peace and
               tranquility during the pendency of the appeal.
               ii.  The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
               make any inducement, threat or promise to any
               person acquainted with the facts of the case.
               iii. The applicant shall report to the jurisdiction
               of police on every Monday of each week of each
               month.


6.             The Bail Application (CRMA No. 1640 of 2020)

stands allowed accordingly.



                       _____________________________
                       RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.



                                   ___________________
                                NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK, J.

Dt: 9th April, 2021 Rathour