Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/106/2023 on 9 June, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
IA No. 1 of 2023
In
CRLA No. 106 of 2023
With
IA No. 1 of 2023
In
CRLA No. 116 of 2023
With
IA No. 1 of 2023
In
CRLA No. 117 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate, for the
appellant.
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy A.G.,
for the State of Uttarakhand.
The complainant Ladetiya Devi, registered
the FIR No. 152 of 2018 dated 22nd June, 2018, for
the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324 and
506 of the IPC, naming therein Hariom, Chaman,
Nepal, Harisingh and Gurubachan, as to be the
main accused persons to be involved in the
commission of offence.
Ultimately the trial was conducted and during
the course of trial, the present appellants to the
Criminal Appeals, were summoned under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C., though despite of the fact, that
their name did not figure even during the course of
investigation, when the chargesheet was submitted.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for
the appellants, that there is no direct nexus of the
present appellants in any manner in commission of
the offence, because their names were not initially
included either in the FIR or in the chargesheet,
being Chargesheet No. 209 of 2018 dated 5th
September, 2018, submitted by the Investigating
Officer, on culmination of investigation.
As a consequence of their introduction of
names under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., they have
been chargesheeted, and consequently, the trial has
commenced.
The learned counsel for the appellants
submit, that there is no direct nexus and
involvement of the present appellants in the
commission of the offence, and no specific role has
been assigned to them either at the stage when the
FIR was registered by the complainant nor their
name was shown to be involved in commission of
offence by the Investigating Officer at the stage,
when the chargesheet was submitted. Since their
name has figured for the first time, when they have
been summoned to participate in the proceedings
under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the proceedings
of the respective Sessions Trial No. 201A/2017,
State Vs. Hari Singh and others, stood instituted
against the present appellants.
The learned counsel for the appellants
contends, that the other named accused persons,
namely, Hari Om Gurubachan, who have been
specifically assigned with the role in the FIR, had
already been bailed out, and since the present
appellants have been introduced into the trial by
way of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., their
involvement in the commission of the any offence
is still doubtful.
He further argues, that after the inclusion of
their name under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., they
have been languishing in jail ever since 9th March,
2021 and out of the total sentence, which was
imposed by the learned Trial Court by the
impugned judgment of six years of rigorous
imprisonment, they have already undergone about
two years and four months of sentence, and hence,
they claim for benefit of Section 436-A, for seeking
their release.
Considering the fact, that no specific role has
been assigned to the appellants, and since they have
been languishing in jail for more than 2 years and 4
months, the appellants are directed to be released on
bail subject to furnishing of their personal bond and
two sureties, each of the like amount, by each of the
appellant, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
The Bail Applications filed in each Criminal
Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 09.06.2023
Shiv
