CRLA/371/2020
2022 Latest Caselaw 2516 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                     16TH AUGUST, 2022

               Bail Application No.4361 of 2020
                               in
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.371 of 2020


Between:

Raghav alias Radho and two Others                 ...Appellants

and

State of Uttarakhand.                         ...Respondent



Counsel for the Appellants   : Mr. M.K. Goyal.

Counsel for the State/       :   Mr. Atul Kumar Shah,
Respondent                       learned Deputy Advocate
                                 General for the State.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The instant Bail Application has been filed for seeking bail in this Criminal Appeal.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.02.2020/ 29.02.2020, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2015, "State vs. Raghav alias Radho and two Others", whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC; they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for the

offence under Section 504, and, they have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

3. Heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State on the Bail Application (IA No.4361 of 2020).

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution's witnesses; the place of the incident could not be established by the prosecution; the statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the PW2 was recorded after one and a half month from the date of lodging of the FIR; there are substantial doubts about the conviction; the appellant no.1, namely, Raghav alias Radho is 70 years old and the appellant no.2, Ashok and the appellant no.3, Ramkishore are the sons of the appellant no.1; they are permanent resident of District Haridwar; they have no criminal history and they were on bail during the trial and the conditions of the bail were neither violated nor misused by them.

5. The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that the appellants have no criminal history and they were on bail during the trial and the conditions of the bail were neither violated nor misused by them.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that

the appellants deserve bail at this stage. The Bail Application (IA No.4361 of 2020), therefore, is allowed.

7. The appellants, namely, Raghav alias Radho, Ashok and Ramkishore shall be released on bail on their executing their personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with these conditions:-

(i) The appellants shall maintain peace and tranquility during the pendency of the appeal.

(ii) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

8. List this case on 15.10.2022.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 16.08.2022 Pant