Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/162/2022 on 22 June, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
(Bail Appl. No.01 of 2022)
In
CRLA No.162 of 2022
With
(Bail Appl. No.01 of 2022)
In
CRLA No.188 of 2022
With
(Bail Appl. No.01 of 2022)
In
CRLA No.228 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Vikas Anand,
Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA for the State.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the
complainant.
2. These appeals are filed under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order dated
06.05.2022 passed by learned District & Sessions
Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Session Trial No.79 of 2019, "State vs. Sanju
Vishwas and others". By the said judgment, all
appellants/applicants were convicted for offence
punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC and
sentenced for life. A fine of Rs.25,000/- with a
default stipulation for a further period of one
year's simple imprisonment has been imposed.
3. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Lalit
Sharma, Advocates for the appellants on the bail
applications.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the role assigned to the appellants
is only of exhortation and the main assailant who
shot fire upon the deceased has not preferred any
appeal. It is further submitted that appellant
Ranjeet Sarkar is 68 years of age while Subhash
Vishwas is aged about 63 years of age. On this
basis it is submitted that they are senior citizens
and are incarcerated in the present case for last
three and half years during trial and pendency of
this appeal. It is further submitted that the
appellants were on bail during trial and they have
never misused the bail.
5. Other appellants- Avinash Vishwas and
Suraj Vishwas have also been assigned the role of
only exhortation as stated above.
6. It has not been denied by the learned Deputy
Advocate General appearing for the State that the
appellants were assigned the role of exhortation
only.
7. We have gone through the judgment and the
evidence submitted during trial and found that it is
a case where due to dispute regarding the income
and expenditure of committee of a temple, a
sudden quarrel arose in which main assailant Sanju
Vishwas has opened fire which killed Late Neeraj
Kumar, a small time politician alleged to be in the
village.
8. Considering the submissions and the facts
and circumstances of the case without expressing
any opinion on the final merits of the appeal, since
all the appellants have been assigned a role of
exhortation only, we are inclined to enlarge the
applicants on bail at this stage. Accordingly, bail
applications are allowed.
9. Let the appellants/applicants-Ranjeet Sarkar,
Subhash Vishwas, Avinash Vishwas and Suraj
Vishwas be released on bail during the pendency
of these appeals on executing personal bonds and
furnishing two reliable local sureties by each one
of them, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned.
10. It is made clear that a liberty is given to the
informant/and the State that in any case of any
threat being extended at the hands of the
appellants, the informant/State are free to move an
application for cancellation of the bail.
11. List in due course.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
22.06.2023
Arti
