Uttarakhand High Court
CRJA/72/2019 on 13 July, 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
13th JULY, 2021
Bail Application No. 01 of 2021
In
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 72 of 2019
Between:
Rajiv Kashyap.
...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand.
...Respondent
With
Bail Application No. 3591 of 2019
In
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 75 of 2019
Between:
Smt. Anjali.
...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand.
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellant in : Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned Amicus
CRJA No. 72 of 2019. Curiae.
Counsel for the appellant in : Mr. Rajendra Arya, the learned counsel.
CRJA No. 75 of 2019.
Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The Court made the following :
COMMON ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma)
These Bail Applications IA No. 01 of 2021,
filed in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 72 of 2019, and IA No.
3591 of 2019, filed in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 75 of
2019, are decided by this common order because these
criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment dated
18.09.2019, passed by the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions
Trial No. 32 of 2014 "State v. Laturi Pandit and two
others", whereby the appellant in Criminal Jail Appeal
No. 72 of 2019, Rajiv Kashyap, has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC; he has been convicted and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences
2
are directed to run concurrently The appellant in
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 75 of 2019, Smt. Anjali, has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
120-B of IPC.
2. Heard Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned
Amicus Curiae in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 72 of 2019,
Mr. Rajendra Arya, the learned counsel for the
appellant in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 75 of 2019, and
Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General, for
the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned Amicus
Curiae and Mr. Rajendra Arya, the learned counsel for
the appellant, submitted that the appellants have been
implicated in this matter. The chain is not completed in
the present matter of the circumstantial evidence.
There was no motive to commit murder of the
deceased. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned Amicus
Curiae for the appellant-Rajiv Kashyap, submitted that
according to the prosecution case, his shirt and pant
3
were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer.
However, no blood was found in the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory.
4. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand,
submitted that on 06.11.2013, the nephew of the
deceased Rajendra Singh lodged an F.I.R. to the effect
that his maternal uncle Rajendra Singh (deceased) was
working as a labour with Rajiv Kashyap (appellant in
CRJA No.72 of 2019), and there was illicit relationship
between the co-accused Smt. Anjali (wife of the
deceased) and the appellant Rajiv Kashyap. Rajiv
Kashyap often visited the house of the deceased. His
maternal uncle (deceased) had come to know about
this illicit relationship of his wife. Due to this illicit
relationship, the appellants committed murder.
According to the Post Mortem Report, there were 14
stab wounds on the body of the deceased, and during
investigation a knife was recovered at the instance of
the appellant-Rajiv Kashyap, which had blood on it.
During the trial, 19 witnesses were examined, and
these witnesses had supported the case of the
4
prosecution and during the trial, the appellant Rajiv
Kashyap was not granted bail.
5. At the stage of considering the bail
application, a detailed examination of evidence, and
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has
not to be undertaken. The grant or denial of bail is
regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and
circumstances of each particular case.
6. While dealing with an application for bail,
there is a need to indicate in the order the reasons as
to why bail is being granted, particularly when the
appellants are convicted in a serious offence.
Therefore, an order of bail cannot be granted in an
arbitrary or fanciful manner.
7. In the present matter, the prosecution
witnesses, including the daughter of the co-accused,
Smt. Anjali, has supported the case of the prosecution.
At this stage, detailed appreciation of evidence shall
affect the merit of the case. If a strong prima facie
ground is disclosed for substantial doubt about the
5
conviction, it may be a ground to grant the bail. Such
a ground does not appear in the present case.
8. Therefore, without commenting on the merit
of the case, there is no good ground to release the
appellants, involved in this heinous crime, on bail.
Both the Bail Applications (IA No. 01 of 2021 and IA
No. 3591 of 2019) are, accordingly, dismissed.
9. It is clarified that the observations made
regarding the bail applications are limited to the
decision of these bail applications, as to whether the
bail applications should be allowed or not. The said
observations shall not effect the merit of this appeal.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 13th July, 2021
JKJ/Pant
