Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/12/2021 on 15 June, 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. 02 of 2021
In
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2021
15TH JUNE, 2021
Between:
Manoj Chand.
...Appellant-Applicant
and
State of Uttarakhand.
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellant. : Mr. V.B.S. Negi, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Kapri, the
learned counsel for the appellant-
applicant.
Counsel for the respondent. : Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The Court made the following :
ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma)
This Bail Application has been filed on behalf
of the appellant, Manoj Chand, seeking regular bail.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the
appellant, Manoj Chand, against the judgment dated
26.11.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
District Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2014
"State of Uttarakhand v. Manoj Chand and another",
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and has
been sentenced for life imprisonment, along with a fine
of Rs. 25,000/-; he has been convicted and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years six
months, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 201 IPC; he has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
period of three years six months, along with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
120-B IPC; and he has been further convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of
three months for the offence punishable under Section
30 of the Arms Act. All the sentences are directed to
run concurrently.
3. Heard Mr. V.B.S. Negi, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Kapri, the learned
2
counsel for the appellant, and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Uttarakhand.
4. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, the learned Senior Advocate
for the appellant, submitted that the appellant has been
implicated in the instant case; the prosecution case is
based on the circumstantial evidence; the prosecution
has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances
against the appellant; there are contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 7 and
P.W. 9; there is nothing on the record to suggest that
the appellant committed murder. He further submitted
that according to the prosecution, on 08.05.2014, the
appellant had seen the deceased and his wife in an
objectionable condition in his house. Then, the
appellant shot him twice with his gun. Mr. V.B.S. Negi,
the learned Senior Advocate, argued that, according to
the prosecution, there was sudden quarrel. Therefore,
this is not a case of murder.
5. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand, opposed the bail
application, and submitted that the appellant acted in a
3
cruel manner, and shot the deceased twice with his
gun. On 09.05.2014, the informant Pankaj Lal Verma,
the brother of the deceased, lodged a missing report of
his brother Sunil Verma, the deceased. The appellant
was arrested on 10.05.2014. The dead-body of the
deceased and one gun, the murder weapon, along with
a shirt, belt and curtain, were recovered at the instance
of the appellant. The prosecution case has been
supported by the prosecution's witnesses.
6. 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.
7. 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
appellant is convicted in a serious offence. Therefore,
an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or
fanciful manner.
4
8. At this stage, 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 a ground to grant the
bail. Such a ground does not appear in the present
case. Therefore, the bail application has no merit and
is, hereby, dismissed.
9. It is clarified that the observations made
regarding the bail application is limited to the decision
of this bail application, as to whether the bail
application should be allowed or not and the said
observations shall not affect the merits of this appeal.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 15th June, 2021
RAHUL
