Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 437 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2022
                               With
                Bail Application (IA) No. 1 of 2022


Gurmeet Singh                                 ........Appellant

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand                        ........Respondent
Present:-
      Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Chetna
      Latwal, Advocate for the appellant.
      Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, along with Mr. Rakesh
      Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State

Coram :    Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the

appellant Gurmeet Singh against the judgment and order

dated 18.07.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2017,

State Vs. Amrik Singh and others, by the court of Third

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District

Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life

imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3. It has been the prosecution case that on

22.12.2016 at about 1:00 in the afternoon, the deceased

Pritam Singh was waylaid by the appellant and co-convict.

The deceased was abused and at the exhortation of the

appellant, the co-convict Amrik Singh fired at the deceased

due to which he died.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would

submit that the actual role of firing has not been assigned to

the appellant; the informant in her statement has even not

supported the FIR and has stated that in fact, the deceased

was fired by co-convict Amrik Singh. PW1 Ranjeet Kaur, the

informant has further stated that she named the appellant at

the instance of the villagers, who told her that Amrik Singh

could not have committed such an offence all alone.

5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel would

submit the presence of appellant at the time of occurrence is

not disputed. PW3 Sonia and PW6 Mangat Singh has also

stated about the incident.

6. FIR has been lodged by PW1 Ranjeet Kaur. In the FIR,

the role of exhortation has been assigned to the appellant

that at his instance the co-convict fired at Pritam Singh, but

this has not been supported in her statement by PW1

Ranjeet Kaur. She also states that she reached at the spot

along with other family members including PW3 Sonia. PW6

Mangat Singh has not stated anything about exhortation

that has allegedly been made by the appellant.

7. Having considered the entirety of the facts, this Court is

of the view that bail application of the appellant deserves to

be allowed.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. The operation and execution of sentence, appealed

against, shall remain suspended during pendency of this

appeal. Let the appellant be released on bail, on his

executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 21.02.2023 Mahinder