Uttarakhand High Court
Arfat Ali & Another ........Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 July, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application (IA Nos.79/2024, 77/2024 & 79/2024)
In
Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019
Arfat Ali & another ........Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No.531 of 2019
Aneesh Ahmad alias Sahil ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No.532 of 2019
Aneesh Ahmad alias Sahil ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel with Mr. B.D.
Pande and Ms. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel(s) for the
appellant(s).
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
ORDER
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
These three connected appeals are arising out
of the judgment and order dated 04.09.2019, passed by
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar, whereby appellant(s) have been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
S. Name Convicti Sentence Fine Sentence in-
N on lieu of fine
o.
1. Aneesh 364A IPC Life Rs.50,000/- Six months'
Ahmad (S.T. imprisonment additional
No.79/2016) imprisonment
120B IPC 01 year R.I. Rs.5,000/- One month
additional
imprisonment
Aneesh 25 of the 01 year Rs.5,000/- One month
Ahmad (S.T. Arms Act imprisonment additional
No.80/2016) imprisonment
2. Arfat Ali (S.T. 364A IPC Life Rs.50,000/- Six months'
No.79/2016) imprisonment additional
imprisonment
120B IPC 01 year R.I. Rs.5,000/- One month
additional
imprisonment
3. Pushpender 364A IPC Life Rs.50,000/- Six months'
Kumar (S.T. imprisonment additional
No.79/2016) imprisonment
120B IPC 01 year R.I. Rs.5,000/- One month
additional
imprisonment
All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. Appellants are facing incarceration after their
conviction. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would press for the second bail applications after the
objections have been filed by the respondent-State.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that the case of the prosecution is completely
based on no evidence; even the recovery of the victim
PW7-Kartik Ghai, son of the informant-Smt. Rashmi
Ghai (PW4) did not support the prosecution version
completely and there are various material contradictions
in the entire story. He further submits that this is a case
where even the recovery of the victim i.e. Kartik Ghai has
not been proved. The person, Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Aggarwal before whom the PW7-Kartik Ghai was
allegedly recovered has not even produced by the
prosecution as witness before the court. The Wagon R
and the motorcycles on which the applicants/appellants
have come and kidnapped PW7-Kartikey Ghai have not
been made part of the investigation and have never been
produced before the learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants also
submits that no identification parade was held as the
same was necessary for the reason that the accused
persons, according to the case of the prosecution were
unknown to PW7-Kartik Ghai. Thus, it is contended that
the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt and there are many loopholes in the
prosecution version and the applicants/appellants would
ultimately be acquitted of the charges.
5. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
supported that the case of the prosecution, but no
specific reply was there with him with regard to the
argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicants/appellants. However, PW1-
Rajesh Arora, S/o Shri Balkrishana Arora was examined
before the learned trial court but he gave no evidence of
the recovery/handing over of victim Kartik to his parents
in his presence. (PW1 is wrongly mentioned as Rajesh
Kumar Aggarwal in memo of handing over custody of
victim to his parents.)
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of the record, without expressing any
opinion on the final merits of the appeal, we are inclined
to release the applicants/appellants on bail at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the second bail applications are
allowed. Let the appellants-Arfat Ali, Pushpender Kumar
& Aneesh Ahmad @ Sahil be released on bail on their
executing personal bond(s) and two reliable sureties,
each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
8. List for final hearing in due course.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari,J.)
04.07.2024
AK
