Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/299/2017 on 27 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
BAIL APPLICATION No.12085 of 2021
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.299 of 2017
27TH JULY, 2021
Between:
Rajesh Gulati ...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the : Mr. Vaidyanathan Chitambaresh,
appellant. learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Naman Kamboj, learned
counsel.
Counsel for respondent. : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State.
The Court made the following:
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Justice Sri Alok Kumar Verma)
This application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant Rajesh Gulati for bail in this appeal.
2. The instant appeal has been filed against the
judgment dated 31.08.2017/01.09.2017, passed by the
learned Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun
in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2011, "State vs. Rajesh Gulati",
2
whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections
302 and 201 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10.00 lakhs for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and he has
been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the
offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC with default
stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
3. Heard Mr. Vaidyanathan Chitambaresh, the
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Naman Kamboj,
the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, the
learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through
video conferencing.
4. Mr. Vaidyanathan Chitambaresh, the learned
Advocate submitted that the appellant has already
undergone 11 years. He has been implicated. The
marriage of the appellant and the deceased was a love
marriage. The appellant neither had any mens rea nor any
motive to commit murder of his wife. The recoveries are
planted. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are
contradictory. The appellant is an Engineer, whose conduct
in the jail is excellent, therefore, the appellant should be
granted bail.
3
5. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State opposed the bail application and
submitted that on 12.12.2010, the informant, brother of
the deceased had lodged a missing report with the
averments that his sister was missing from her house. The
police acted upon the missing report and visited to the
house of the appellant. During search, the dead body of
the deceased was recovered from the freezer of the
appellant on 12.12.2010. It was found that on
17.10.2010, the appellant had a fight with his wife
(deceased). The appellant had an affair with a lady (PW-
25) and because of the said affair, the appellant has
committed the offence. After commission of the murder,
the appellant purchased deep freezer from the shop of the
witness Shakil (PW-9) on 19.10.2010 and a wooden cutter
from the shop of Pratik Bansal (PW-13) on 03.11.2010 to
dispose of the body of the deceased. At the instance of the
appellant, the severed body of the deceased was
recovered from the deep freezer kept in the house of the
appellant and her feet was recovered near Malsi Deer
Park. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of
death was ante-mortem injuries. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
Deputy Advocate General for the State, argued that the
prosecution has examined 42 witnesses before the learned
trial court. The prosecution witnesses have supported the
prosecution case. The mere fact that the appellant is in
4
custody may not be a relevant consideration to release the
appellant on bail. He further argued that the offence is
very heinous and all the prosecution witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, there is
no good ground to release the appellant on bail.
6. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Amarmani
Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that it is well settled that the matters to be
considered in an application for bail, are (i) whether there
is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence, (ii) nature and gravity
of charge, (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction, (iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail, (v) character, behavior, means,
position and standing of the accused, (vi) likelihood of the
offence being repeated, (vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with, and (viii) danger, of
course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
7. In determining whether to grant bail, both the
seriousness of the charge and the severity of the
punishment should be taken into consideration. While
dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to
indicate in the order, reasons for considering why bail is
being granted particularly where the appellant is convicted
in a serious offence. Any order dehors reasons suffers
5
from non-application of mind as observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs.
Sudarshan Singh and others, (2002) 3 SCC 598.
8. At the stage of considering the bail application, a
detailed examination of evidence and elaborate of the
documentation of the merit of the case has not to be
undertaken. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large
extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular
case.
9. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of
the case, there is no good ground to release the appellant,
involved in this heinous crime, on bail. The bail application
is rejected accordingly.
10. It is clarified that the observations made
regarding the bail application are limited to the decision of
this bail application as to whether the bail application
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: 27th July, 2021
JKJ/NEHA
