CRLA/424/2016
2022 Latest Caselaw 1769 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  CRLA No.424 of 2016
                                  Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.

Mr. R.S. Sammal and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rakesh Joshi and Mr. Rohit Dhyani, the learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the bail application.

This application for bail and suspension of sentence (IA/1/2021) has been filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C."). The appellant, namely, Jitendra Chauhan, has prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail upon appeal. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

                                  S.    Conviction   Sentence         Fine          Sentence
                                  No.                                               in default
                                                                                    of fine
                                  1.    302 IPC      Life             Rs.10,000/-   Two
                                                     Imprisonment                   years'
                                                                                    S.I.
                                  2.    364A IPC     Life             Rs.10,000/-   Two
                                                     Imprisonment                   years'
                                                                                    S.I.
                                  3.    201 IPC      Three   years'   Rs.3,000/-    Six
                                                     R.I.                           months'
                                                                                    S.I.

The aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant has been falsely implicated; there is no evidence against him; the dead body was not identified by the family members of the deceased and there was no occasion to kidnap the deceased for the ransom; accordingly, he is entitled for bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail.

From perusal of the record, it is clear that Vinod Mandola submitted information with Police Station Clement Town, Dehradun on 23.11.2013; on the basis of the information, Chick FIR was lodged; the appellant was arrested; his statement was recorded; upon disclosure statement, the clothes related to the deceased and one mobile was recovered; so far as the ransom call is concerned, two mobiles, one related to the deceased and one related to the accused- appellant, were recovered, which were sent for FSL testing; as per the report, there was call detail between the two (appellant and deceased). So far as the identification of the deceased is concerned, the clothes, which were used by the deceased, were definitely identified by the family members of the deceased; the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the railway track; the clothes used by the deceased were also recovered at the pointing out of the accused-appellant; the trial Court in its judgment assessed all the evidences; and there is no scope for granting the bail at this stage.

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the present Bail Application (IA/1/2021) is, hereby, dismissed.

List in the week commencing 01.08.2022 for hearing the appeal.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari J.) 14.06.2022 BS/SS