Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/627/2023 on 31 October, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
IA No. 1 of 2023 (Bail Application)
In
CRLA No. 627 of 2023
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the
appellant.
2. Mr. K.S. Rawal, Addl. C.S.C. for the State.
3. The appellant has been convicted under
Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 506 of the IPC and
has been punished accordingly to the maximum
sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment
under Section 307/149 IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.
10,000/- with default stipulation of three months
rigorous imprisonment; one year rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section
147 IPC with a default stipulation of one month
additional rigorous imprisonment; two years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-
under Section 148 of the IPC with default
stipulation of one month additional rigorous
imprisonment, and, two years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under
Section 506 of the IPC with default stipulation of
one month additional rigorous imprisonment. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. The appellant remained on bail during trial
and presently is under incarceration since the date
of pronouncement of the judgment i.e. 15.07.2023.
5. When the appeal was filed as fresh, the
objections were called from the respondent State.
The objection has now been filed that is on the
record. The appeal is presented today alongwith
bail application. It is mainly submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
was on bail during trial and he never misused the
liberty given by way of bail. Apart from this, on the
merits of the case, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel that appellant has nothing to do
with the mining; and he had no interaction with the
other co-accused and the other parties and he has
been falsely roped in criminal case. It is further
submitted that the appellant has been assigned the
general role and as many as 11 persons have been
convicted and it is not clear as to who was the
assailant. It is further argued by learned counsel for
the appellant that the other co-accused who were
convicted in the aforesaid session trial, have
preferred appeals in which they have already been
granted bail by this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State
submitted that there are serious allegations against
all the co-accused persons, as there are in all 11
persons, who got injuries in the incident and,
therefore, it is not safe to grant bail to the appellant.
However, he admitted this fact that the role which
has been given to the appellant is general in nature.
7. Having considered the rival submission made
by the parties and without expressing any opinion
on the final merits of the appeal, this Court finds it
fit to grant bail to the appellant at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the
appellant Ranjeet Singh @ Manga 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.
8. The appellant, however, shall deposit the fine
before the court concerned, which shall be a
condition precedent for his release.
9. List this matter for final hearing.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
31.10.2023
Ujjwal
