Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/165/2022 on 14 September, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
Bail Application No. 2 of 2022
In
CRLA No.165 of 2022
Hon'ble S.K. Mishra, ACJ.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mr. Ghashyam Joshi, learned counsel
for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
This is the First Bail Application, filed
by the appellant- Keshav Dutt, under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
The appellant has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
along with a fine of Rs.10,000.00/- for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
He has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of three years along with a fine of
Rs.5,000.00/- for the offence punishable
under Section 498A IPC. He has been
further convicted and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two
years along with a fine of Rs.2,000.00/- for
the offence punishable under Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 vide
judgment dated 20.07.2021/24.07.2021,
passed by learned Ist Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial
No.52 of 2016 and Sessions Trial No.53 of
2016 respectively. All the sentences are
directed to run concurrently.
It is brought to our notice that the
very case of the prosecution was that the
deceased died due to asphyxia arising out of
poisoning. The post-mortem report is
inconclusive, in the sense, that no definite
opinion could be arrived at regarding the
nature of death. However, the doctor, while
conducting the post-mortem, preserved the
visceras. The Investigating Officer obtained
a copy of the visceras examination report,
but, it was neither made a part of the
charge-sheet nor was it produced before the
learned trial Judge.
Thus, it is apparent from the case
record that, prima facie, the prosecution has
failed to prove that the deceased died a
homicidal nature of death.
It is apparent from the record that
during the course of the trial learned Single
Judge of this Court vide order dated
08.08.2016 in First Bail Application No.697
of 2016 had granted bail to the appellant
and there is no allegation from the side of
the prosecution that he ever misused the
liberty granted to him. Moreover, he is a
permanent resident of District Nainital.
In that view of the matter, and in view
of the fact the appellant is a permanent
resident of District Nainital, which precludes
reasonable apprehension of him absconding
from the process of justice, we are inclined
to grant bail to the appellant. The bail
application is allowed. Sentence awarded by
the learned Ist Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial
No. 52 of 2016 and Sessions Trial No.53 of
2016 is hereby suspended. He shall be
released on bail, on such suitable terms and
conditions, as the learned Ist Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Nainital, deems
fit and proper.
The bail application stands disposed of.
The matter be listed on 18.04.2023.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (S.K. Mishra, ACJ.)
14.09.2022
Neha/SB
