CRLA/70/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 925 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 ALOK KUMAR VERMA


                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 70 of 2021
                             With
                 BAIL APPLICATION No. 1 of 2021



                         16TH MARCH, 2021

 Between:

 Aneesh.                                                ...Appellant

 and


 State of Uttarakhand.                                   ...Respondent


 Counsel       for      the : Mr. Arvind Vasistha, learned
 appellant.                   Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
                              Imran Ali Khan, learned counsel.

 Counsel for respondent.     : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
                               Advocate General assisted by Mr.
                               Rohit Dhyani, learned Brief Holder
                               for the State.



 The Court made the following:

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


              Admit.


 2.           Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Counsel

 has raised the following contentions for seeking the benefit

 of bail for Aneesh, the appellant:-


        Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

 submits that there is no cogent and convincing evidence

 against Aneesh.
                                   2

     Secondly, none of the witnesses produced by the

prosecution claim that they saw Aneesh coming out of the

house of the deceased at the dead of the night. At best,

some of them claim that they saw Aneesh in the

neighborhood. But, merely, because he was seen in the

neighborhood, would not make him the actual culprit.


      Thirdly,    merely        because   there    was        some

conversation which had taken place between Aneesh and

Shabana, the other accused in this case, that by itself

would not lead to any logical inference that Aneesh killed

Shabana's husband. After all, the prosecution admits the

facts that Aneesh is related to Shabana. Therefore, mere

conversation, even if at night, does not lead to a

conclusion that he is involved in the alleged offence.


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

Deputy Advocate General has pleaded that there is

sufficient    evidence   that    Aneesh   was     seen   in    the

neighborhood, along with another person, whose face was

covered. The witnesses have identified Aneesh, as Aneesh

was known to them.          Moreover, the prosecution has

clearly established that there were long conversation

between Aneesh and Shabana on the fateful night when

Shabana's husband was killed. Therefore, the learned Trial

Court was justified in convicting Aneesh. Hence, the
                                  3

learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed

the grant of bail.


4.          Without expressing any opinion on the merits

and demerits of the case, this Court grants bail to Aneesh

son    of   Iltaf,   provided   he   submits   a   bail   bond   of

Rs.50,000/-, and two sureties of the same amount to the

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. He is further

directed to maintain peace and tranquility during his bail

period. He is further directed to report to the jurisdiction of

police on every Monday of each week of each month.




                       _____________________________
                       RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.


                                     ___________________
                                     ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 16th March, 2021 NEHA