CRLA/366/2016
2023 Latest Caselaw 2092 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. 366 of 2016
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Arvind Vashist, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Hemant Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.

2. Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The appellant is a convict for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of IPC, as a consequence thereto by virtue of judgment of conviction dated 04.02.2016, as it was rendered by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.250 of 2006, State vs. Manoj@Teetu.

4. He has been sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC as well as for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC, for which he has been sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed, both the sentence were to run concurrently.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant presses the second bail application on the ground that there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution, which could establish the involvement of the present appellant in commission of offence and the role which has been assigned to him, as per the findings recorded in the judgment where he was shown to be carrying a country made pistol, but in the absence of there being any FSL report with regards to the weapon and particularly in the absence of its recovery being made by the investigating

officers, the involvement of the present appellant in directly commission of offence cannot be directly made out from the observations which has been made in the judgment impugned as well as by the evidence which was led by the prosecution.

6. Besides this, there is observations made in the judgment impugned that the pellets which has recovered from the body of the deceased, they were not even sent for FSL examination and hence appellant cannot directly be attributed to be involvement in commission of the offence, because there were other co-accused persons, who were jointly involved in the commission of offence out of which one of the co-accused persons Virendra@Khalifa has already been granted bail by this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also further argues that since as of now the appellant has already been served the sentence of more than ten years, he would be entitled to be considered for bail in the light of the bail already granted to co- accused person- Virendra@Khalifa.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant- Manoj@Teetu is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing of the personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 04.08.2023 R.Bisht/PN