8Th May vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 1687 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


           BAIL APPLICATION NO. 770 OF 2019

                              In
           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149 of 2019

                      18TH MAY, 2021


Between:


Harvinder Singh.                                  ....Appellant


and


State of Uttarakhand.                           ......Respondent



Counsel for the appellant      :     Mr. D.K. Sharma,
                                    learned Senior Advocate
                                     assisted by Mr. Vipul
                                     Sharma, learned
                                     counsel.



Counsel for the respondent     :     Mr. J.S. Virk, learned
                                     Deputy Advocate General
                                     for the State.


The Court made the following :
                               2


ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma)



          This application is filed for seeking bail in this

appeal.



2.        The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant,

namely, Harvinder Singh, against the judgment dated

14.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.357 of

2010 "State of Uttarakhand vs. Harvinder and others",

whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has been

sentenced for life imprisonment along with a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-; he has been convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years

along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable

under Section 201 of I.P.C.; he has been convicted and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

three years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 404 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.


3.        Heard Mr.    D.K.   Sharma,   the learned   Senior

Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, the learned counsel

for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy

Advocate General for the State through video conferencing.
                                  3


4.           Mr. D.K. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the appellant submitted that it is a case of

circumstantial evidence; the prosecution has failed to prove

its   case    against   the   appellant;   there   are   material

contradictions in the prosecution evidence; the prosecution

has produced 35 witnesses and out of which 26 witnesses

did not support the prosecution case; the prosecution

witness Smt. Sanjana Devi (PW28) is wife of the deceased;

the witness Ran Singh (PW29) is brother of the deceased

and the witness Rajesh Kumar (PW31) is the brother-in-law

of the deceased and these are interested witnesses; the

alleged recovery was false and the dead body of the

deceased was not identifiable.


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

Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submitted

that during trial, evidence has been produced to the effect

that there was a money transaction between the deceased

and the appellant. The deceased gave Rs.1 crore 15 lakhs to

the appellant. The deceased kept Rs.40 lakhs. At the time of

the incident, when the deceased was telling his wife on the

phone that he had Rs.40 lakhs, the appellant stood by him

and Rs.1,47,500/-were recovered by the police from the

house of the appellant. Although, the head of the deceased
                                           4


was found isolated from the body, the prosecution witness

Ran Singh (PW29) identified the dead body of the deceased.


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 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, reasons for considering 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.


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. The bail application is rejected.


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
                               5


allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the

merit of this appeal.




                        ____________________________
                     RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.




                           _______________________
                                  ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 18th May, 2021 Neha