Uttarakhand High Court
Ravi Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2023)
In
Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2023
Ravi Singh ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No.248 of 2023
Reena Kaur ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2023
Manjeet @ Preeta ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Disha
Vashistha, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No.233/2023.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA
No.248/2023.
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna
Latwal, learned counsel for the appellant in CRLA No.260/2023.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
ORDER
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
These three connected appeals are arising out
of the judgment and order dated 01.04.2023, passed by
5th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial
No.142 of 2019, whereby appellant(s) have been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
S. Name Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in-
N lieu of fine
o.
1. Ravi Singh 302 r/w Life Rs.50,000/- 02 years'
120B IPC imprisonment additional
R.I. imprisonment
201 r/w 05 years' R.I. Rs.10,000/- 06 months'
120B IPC additional
imprisonment
2. Manjeet @ 302 r/w Life Rs.50,000/- 02 years'
Preeta 120B IPC imprisonment additional
R.I. R.I.
201 r/w 05 years' R.I. Rs.10,000/- 06 months'
120B IPC additional
imprisonment
3. Reena 302 r/w Life Rs.50,000/- 02 years'
Kaur 120B IPC imprisonment additional
R.I. R.I.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Appellants are facing incarceration after their
conviction and are under imprisonment since the date of
pronouncement of judgment dated 01.04.2023.
Appellant(s) moved their bail application(s) in these
appeal(s) separately being (IA Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2023) for
their release on bail during the pendency of the present
appeal before this Court.
3. Today, learned counsel for the appellant(s)
press for bail application(s).
4. Appellant(s) were prosecuted for committing
murder of one Devendra Singh, S/o S. Jageer Singh, who
was husband of appellant/applicant-Smt. Reena Kaur.
According to the case of prosecution, deceased-Devendra
Singh was murdered by these appellants-applicants
hatching a conspiracy for the reason that appellant no.3-
Smt. Reena Kaur was allegedly in illicit relationship with
appellant-applicant Manjeet @ Preeta and appellant-
applicant Ravi Singh being friend of appellant-Manjeet
Singh who helped both the appellants-applicants to do
away with the deceased-Devendra Singh.
5. Learned Senior Advocate(s) for the appellant(s)
would submit that the case of the prosecution is based
on circumstantial evidence which have not been proved
by the prosecution and further the chain of
circumstances are not complete pointing out towards the
guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. It is
further submits that even if it is proved that the
appellant/applicant-Manjeet Singh was in illicit relation
with Smt. Reena Kaur, w/o deceased, prosecution was
heavily burdened to prove the murder of S. Devendra
Singh by them. It is also argued that there is nothing on
record to suggest as on what basis the prosecution had
proved the charge of murder and criminal conspiracy
against the appellants/applicants.
6. The evidence of PW10, daughter of the
deceased (Devendra Singh) and appellant/applicant-Smt.
Reena Kaur are only to the facts of illicit relationship that
too was not reliable as according to the case of the
defence, she was deposing against her mother for the
reason that she married with Shri Amandeep Singh and
it was a love marriage and appellant/applicant-Smt.
Reena Kaur was opposed to this marriage.
7. The alleged recovery of the wire by which the
deceased was allegedly strangulated was never shown
and put to cross-examine the Doctor (PW6) during trial
and further the mark of ligature was also not
corresponding with the wire as per the post-mortem
report which was allegedly recovered at the pointing out
of appellant/applicant-Ravi Singh.
8. Learned Senior Advocate(s) for the appellant(s)
further tried to discredit the case of the prosecution by
arguing that it is there in the evidence of PW6 that the
dead body was not in a sealed condition, when he
received it for post-mortem, therefore, it creates serious
doubt about the injuries which were found there on the
body. Learned counsel also submits that all the
appellants were on bail during trial; they never misused
the liberty and are in custody since 01.04.2023.
9. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
opposed the bail application(s) saying that by hatching
conspiracy the deceased was done to death by these
appellants and the motive for committing crime was
proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the daughter of
the deceased and appellant/applicant-Reena Kaur,
before the court.
10. Having considered the rival contention of the
parties and having gone through the record, we are
inclined to grant bail to the appellant(s).
11. Without expressing any opinion on the final
merits of the case, let appellants-Ravi Singh, Reena Kaur
& Manjeet @ Preeta be released on bail on their executing
personal bond(s) and two reliable sureties, by each of
them, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
12. List for final hearing in due course.
13. Let a copy of this order be kept in connected
appeals.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari,J.)
04.03.2024
AK
