Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/212/2020 on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 13385 OF 2021
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 OF 2020
17TH AUGUST, 2021
Between:
Shalin Sharma ....Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Suri,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned
Deputy Advocate General
for the State.
The Court made the following :
ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma)
The instant bail application is filed for seeking bail
in this criminal appeal.
2. On 27.06.2013, an information was given by the
informant Smt. Chhaya Devi to the Police Station Ramangar,
District Nainital, stating therein that there was a land
dispute with Dharnidhar Sharma, co-accused, the father of
the present appellant. On 26.06.2013 at around 6.30 in the
2
evening, the informant and her son Sanjay Tomar were
walking on the road, adjacent to their farm. Dharnidhar
Sharma and his two sons Shalin Sharma, the present
appellant, Dheerendra Sharma and one Shalendra Sharma
came in their Maruti Car and Bullet Motorcycle with intention
to kill her son. At that time, the present appellant had a gun,
Dharnidhar Sharma and Dheerendra Sharma had
Tamanchas. The present applicant shot the informant's son.
The bullet hit his stomach. The injured fell on the ground.
The injured was taken to the hospital. He was referred to
the higher center. During the treatment, he died. The
Inquest proceeding and Post-mortem examination were
conducted.
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined as
many as 19 witnesses. After hearing both the parties, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District
Nainital passed the judgment dated 26.02.2020 in the
Sessions Trial No.189 of 2013, "Dharnidhar Sharma and two
others", whereby, the present appellant has been convicted
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a
fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 of IPC; he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years along with a fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence
punishable under Section Part II of 506 of IPC; he has been
3
further convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the
Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four years along with a fine of
Rs.2000/-. All the sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
4. Heard Mr. Sanjay Suri, the learned counsel for the
appellant (through video conferencing) and Mr. J.S. Virk, the
learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
5. Mr. Sanjay Suri, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, submitted that according to the prosecution
story, the informant Chhaya Devi was present at the time of
occurrence, but, this prosecution story is not believable,
because according to the prosecution, there was blood
stained on the clothes of the informant, but the said clothes
were not given to the police. There was a cross version of
the incident. The appellant had sustained gunshot injury by
the accused persons of Sessions Trial No.03 of 2015 'State
vs. Rahul Malik', but, the learned trial court disbelieved the
gunshot injury sustained by the appellant. The deceased
Sanjay Tomar was aggressor. The appellant was on bail
during the trial and he was granted short term bail in this
appeal. The conditions of the short term bail were neither
violated nor misused by him. The co-accused Dharnidhar
4
Sharma and Dheerendra Sharma have been granted bail by
this Court whose role are identical.
6. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk opposed the bail
application and submitted that the informant/eye witness
Chhaya Devi (PW1), whose present on the spot is proved,
has categorically stated in her statement that it was the
present appellant Shalin Sharma who was shot fired upon
her son Sanjay Singh.
7. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar
factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a
particular case may have to be taken into account by the
court. The appellant Dharnidhar Sharma was granted bail
since he was 82 years old. At the time of granting the bail to
the appellant Dharnidhar Sharma, the Court observed that
"Bail is being granted purely in view of the advanced age
and not only on the merit of the matter", whereas, it was
found that the appellant Dheerendra Sharma had not been
assigned any specific role in commission of crime.
8. In Gian Chand and others Vs. State of
Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that one additional or different fact may make a
world of difference between cases or between two accused
in same case. Each case depends on its own facts and a
5
close similarity between one case and another is not enough
because a single significant detail may alter entire aspect.
9. At this stage, a detailed appreciation of evidence
shall affect the merits of the case. If a strong prima facie
ground is disclosed for substantial doubt about the
conviction, it may be ground to grant the bail. Such a
ground does not appear in the present case.
10. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for both the parties and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no good ground to
release the appellant-applicant on bail at this stage. The bail
application has no force and the same is liable to be
rejected. Therefore, the bail application is rejected
accordingly.
11. It is clarified that the observations made regarding
the bail application are limited to the decision, in the light of
the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to
whether the bail application should be allowed or not. The
said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.
____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
_______________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 17th August, 2021
JK/Pant
