Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1504 of 2023
Dinesh Singh .......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:- Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Balvinder Singh, Brief
Holder for the State.
Dated : 17.08.2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Applicant Dinesh Singh, who is in judicial
custody in FIR No.29 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201,
120-B & 34 of IPC, Police Station Mukteshwar, District
Nainital, has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record available on file.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the instant case; that, nothing has
been recovered from his possession; that,
applicant/accused has been arrested only on the basis of
confessional statement of the co-accused; that, the
applicant/accused is languishing in jail since
09.08.2022.
4. He referred the supplementary affidavit
annexing thereby the report of polygraph test of the co-
accused Yashwanti, which was given to the applicant
along with the charge-sheet; that, on the last date of
hearing, the copy of the same was given to the Deputy
A.G. for its verification. He would further submit that the
polygraph examination report is admitted to be true. He
referred paragraph nos.8.2 & 8.3 of the said polygraph
test, in which it specifically shows that the co-accused
Yaswanti has answered all the questions in negative and
she has not hidden anything at the time of conducting
the said polygraph test.
5. He would fairly admitted at Bar that there are
only two evidence against the present applicant/accused,
firstly, the stone used in the commission of crime was
recovered at the instance of the present
applicant/accused and secondly there is confessional
statement of the co-accused, however, he submitted that
the said statement has been recorded in police custody
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even if that is presumed to
be true, the same is not admissible in evidence as per law
against the present applicant/accused. He would further
submit that the co-accused Kamal Singh Rawat with
similar role has already been granted bail by this Court
vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently
opposed the bail application on the ground that the co-
accused has given statements against the present
applicant/accused before the police, however, he
admitted that as per law the confessional statement given
in the custody of the police cannot be admissible in
evidence against the applicant/accused. He also admitted
that the co-accused, Kamal Singh Rawat with similar role
has been granted bail by this Court.
7. In view of the above, without expressing any
opinion on the final merits of the case this Court is of the
view that it is a fit case for bail and the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let
the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond with
two sureties in the amount of `40,000/- and personal
bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
17.08.2023
Mamta
