Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari vs Unknown on 25 August, 2023
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. 43 of 2018
With
Bail Application No. 10692 of 2018
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for
the appellant.
2. Mr. J.S. Virk, Dy. Advocate General
for the State.
3. This appeal is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 25.01.2018
passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions
of 2007, State Vs. Bala Devi and Others,
whereby, the applicant/appellant was
convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 302 of IPC and was
awarded life sentence, with a fine of Rs.
50,000/- with a default stipulation of one
year simple imprisonment. The appellant
was also convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 201 of IPC and
was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years, with a fine of Rs.
20,000/- with a default stipulation of six
months' simple imprisonment.
4. Today, the learned counsel for the
appellant argued on bail application
submitted by the appellant. It is mainly
submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that there is no direct evidence.
It is the case of learned counsel for the
appellant that there is no recovery on the
pointing out of the appellant and the
prosecution witness PW4 Salman Khan,
PW11 Raja Ram and PW12 Abdul Hakeem,
who were said to be the neighbours of the
brother-in-law of the deceased, turned
hostile and they did not recognize the
appellant during the trial. Apart from that,
it is submitted that no motive was
assigned against the appellant by the
prosecution. It is also submitted that the
appellant has already been under
incarceration for the last 16 years and in
such view of the matter, at this stage, the
appellant may be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate
General Mr. J.S. Virk, submitted that it is a
case of direct evidence and there were two
eye-witnesses, the son of the deceased,
who witnessed the incident to happen and
supported the same during the trial in the
Lower Court and, therefore, there is no
reason to disbelief the story of the
prosecution and the conviction has been
rightly awarded.
6. Having heard the rival submission of
the parties, we are of the considered view
that since the appellant is in incarceration
since 04.04.2007, thus, he has already
been under incarceration for more than 16
years, therefore, without expressing any
final opinion on the merits of the case, we
are inclined to grant the bail to the
appellant, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, bail application is
allowed. Let the appellant - Chotu @
Shikander be released on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal, on his executing
a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
8. List this appeal in due course, for
final hearing.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
25.08.2023
Ujjwal
