Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/164/2023 on 29 March, 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.164 of 2023
With
IA/1/2023 (Application for bail and suspension of sentence)
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mrs. Krishi Shukla Bhandari, learned
counsel for the appellant/ applicant.
Mr. A.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate
General along with Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
Admit.
Summon the LCR.
Learned counsel for the applicant presses
the bail application on the following grounds:-
1) That the present appellant-Mohan
Singh has been falsely implicated by
the Court of 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.
2) She submits that he was arrested on
16.12.2015 and remained so till he was
released on bail on 26.06.2016. As
such, after his release on 26.06.2016
till the conclusion of trial, he was on
bail and has never misused the same.
3) It has been argued, that there is no
direct evidence available against the
present applicant to convict him for the
offences under Section 307 of the IPC.
4) Lastly, it has been submitted that
Mohan Singh would be entitled to be
granted parity to the bail application,
which has been granted to one of the
convict persons - Karan Singh.
The aspect pertaining to the false
implication of the present applicant in the
commission of the offence for which he has
been convicted, in fact, while considering the
bail, this Court should refrain itself from
making any observation on merit because it
may prejudice the appellants proceedings itself.
But, still on the perusal of the prosecution's
evidence, which has been considered by the
learned Trial Court, the observations have been
made by the Court while examining the
witnesses and, particularly, that as observed in
paragraph no.22, that the present applicant
did not had a nexus in commission of offence
which was complained of for engaging himself
in commission of offence under Section 307 of
the IPC.
The relevant finding in relation to the said
effect has been recorded by the learned Trial
Court, in its judicial analysis made in
paragraph no.40 of the judgment, where the
offence under Section 307 of IPC was found to
have been established to have been committed
by the present applicant.
The argument of the learned counsel for
the applicant, that when the applicant was
released on bail during the course of trial and
he has never misused the same, that cannot be
a common yardstick which is to be adopted for
consideration of grant of bail at the appellate
stage. For the reason being, that when he was
granted bail at the stage of trial, the offence as
against the present applicant was yet to be
established after appreciation of evidence to be
made by the trial Court. Now, he is a convict.
Once upon considering the evidence, the
Court has come to a conclusion, as per the
finding recorded in paragraph no.39 and 40 of
the judgment, of involvement of the present
applicant in commission of an offence under
Section 307 of the IPC, now, it is a positive
conclusion arrived at by the trial Court after
appreciation of the evidence and, hence, the
plea that during the course of trial he was on
bail and he has never misused the same
cannot be a yardstick to be adopted for
considering the bail after judgment of
conviction.
Thirdly, she submits, that the applicant
would be entitled for a parity, because one of
the co-accused persons, who was the prime
assailant - Mr. Karan Singh, has already been
released on bail by this Court vide its order
dated 17.03.2023, as rendered in CRLA No.133
of 2023. There would be no parity available to
the applicant for the reason being that the sole
ground taken by this Court for releasing the
appellant therein on bail was that since the
appellant therein was arrested on 16.12.2015
and was released on bail on 30.01.2018 i.e.
after serving about two years and one month of
sentence. The Court considered that aspect,
that since the major part of the sentence of
more than two years has been served, he was
directed to be released on bail.
But on the other hand, as far as the
present applicant is concerned, he has served
only six months of sentence as against the total
sentence imposed by the judgment of
conviction, hence, no parity is available to the
applicant on the basis of the judgment
rendered in the matter of Mr. Karan Singh.
Hence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined
to grant bail to the present applicant.
The bail application is rejected
accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
29.03.2023
Sukhbant
