Sahid Mehtab S/O A.Q. Ansari ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 2152 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sahid Mehtab S/O A.Q. Ansari ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 September, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                                                     Reserved on 02.08.2024
                                                     Delivered on 19.09.2024

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              1st Bail Application No. 229 of 2023

Sahid Mehtab s/o A.Q. Ansari                     ........Applicant/Accused

                                     Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                      .........Respondent

                                              With

              1st Bail Application No. 389 of 2023

Aman Kumar
S/o Sri Suprendra Singh                              ...Applicant/Accused

                                     Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                      .........Respondent
                                              With

          1st Bail Application No. 392 of 2023
Nikhil Chamoli
S/o Late Shri Devraj Chamoli        ......Applicant/Accused

                                     Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                      .........Respondent

              3rd Bail Application No. 100 of 2023

Faizal s/o Sher Mohammad                         ........Applicant/Accused

                                     Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                      .........Respondent


Present:
Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned senior counsel through V.C. assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matlub,
learned counsel for the applicant in BAI No.229 of 2023.
2. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant in BA3 No.100 of 2023.
3. Mrs. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant in BA1 No.389 of 2023.
4. Dr. K. Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant in BA1 No.392 of 2023.
5. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mrs. Mamta Joshi,
learned Brief Holder for the State.


Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Since common questions of law are to be decided in all these bail applications and the F.I.R. challenged in all

these matters is the same, hence, these are being taken up together and decided by this common order.

2. In 1st Bail Application No. 229 of 2023, 1st Bail Application No. 389 of 2023, 1st Bail Application No. 392 of 2023 and 3rd Bail Application No. 100 of 2023, the applicants/accused Sahid Mehtab Ansari, Aman Kumar, Nikhil Chamoli and Faizal, respectively who are in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 441 of 2021, under Sections 285, 304, 323 r/w Section 35 I.P.C., Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun have sought their release on bail.

3. The 3rd Bail Application No. 100 of 2023 has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Faizal.

His first bail application was rejected on merit by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.03.2023. His second bail application, which was treated as short term bail application, and accordingly, the applicant/accused Faizal was granted short term bail for a period of seven days by the order of Coordinate Bench dated 27.09.2023.

4. The facts of the case in nutshell are that a first information report was lodged by the informant Ishita Sharma on 26.10.2021 at P.S. Kotwali, Nehru Colony, Dehradun with the averments that her brother Ishan Sharma (since deceased) was admitted in "Life Care Foundation Rehabilitation Centre" Dehradun (in short 'the Centre'); that, on 22.10.2021 the informant had requested the centre for discharging his brother; that, on 21.10.2021 the centre informed her that her brother Ishan Sharma tried to run away from the center, due to which he has been given punishment for ten days. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that on 24.10.2021 at 12.59 P.M., the informant received the call from the center that blood pressure of her brother Ishan Sharma was low and he was being brought

home, but at 01:28 P.M., a phone call was received from the center that Ishan Sharma is brought to the Hospital and asked the informant to come there; that, when informant reached the centre, she found the dead body of her brother Ishan Sharma in the ambulance thereafter police took the dead body of the deceased to Hospital; that, on enquires, the informant came to know that her brother Ishan Sharma was brutally murdered by five persons.

5. Learned counsels for the applicants/accused argued that the applicants/accused are innocent; that, they have falsely been implicated in the instant crime; that, the applicants/accused are languishing in jail since their date of arrest except the applicant/accused Faizal, who was granted short term bail for seven days by the Coordinate Bench; that, there are no independent witnesses of the instant crime; that, there is no direct evidence to implicate the applicants/accused in the present case; that; no specific allegations have been made in the F.I.R. against the applicants/accused; that, there is no CCTV footages of the alleged crime; that, the statements of the witnesses are also not corroborated with any evidence; that, the applicant/accused Sahid Mehtab is neither the owner of the centre nor he works in the centre, therefore, there is no reason to implicate him in the instant crime.

6. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants/accused and would submit that as per the contents of the FIR, the injuries found on the body of the deceased and also from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation, the case against the applicants/accused is clearly made out; that, the prosecution witnesses in their statements have fully narrated the involvement of the applicants/accused in the instant crime and sufficient evidence are available on record

to nail the case against the applicants/accused; that, some crucial witnesses are yet to be examined before the trial court and the report of the F.S.L. is also awaited; that, there are chances of tampering of witnesses by the applicants/accused, therefore, the applicants/accused are not entitled for bail.

7. State counsel would further submit that the witness PW5 Akash Kshetri, who was also confined in 'the centre' has categorically stated that he along with the deceased Ishan Sharma was brutally beaten and tortured by the accused persons; that, the said witness Akash Kshetri has also stated that on 24.10.2021, the condition of the deceased was much worse; that, one co-accused Saurabh also slapped him and the deceased became unconscious. He also stated that he and the deceased tried to run away from 'the centre' for which the applicants/accused and other co-accused persons of 'the centre' gave punishment to them and they were made to sit on the chair with cylinders hanging from their hands; that, they were beaten with the sticks (danda). This witness also stated that hot water was also poured on the deceased by one accused-Aman is resulting into injury on the left hand of the deceased. The said witness has stated that he and deceased were mercilessly beaten up; that, the said witness also registered a case against Nikhil Chamoli, Mehtab, Faizal and other accused persons, which is still pending before the court.

8. Learned State counsel would further submit that the complainant in her statement as PW1 has categorically stated that when she went to meet her brother at 'the centre', the applicant/accused Nikhil Chamoli told him that the applicants/accused Mehtab and other co-accused persons are very short-tempered and applicant/accused Sahid Mehtab is a slaughterer (Jallad) type person and

could go to any extent to cure the patient. She also stated that the applicant/accused Nikhil Chamoli also told her that the accused persons also beat the patient with sticks.

9. State counsel would further submit that Dr. Piyush Tripathi, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Ishan Sharma has stated in his statement as PW3 that there were many injuries on the body of the deceased and there were also burn marks on the hands and body of the deceased. The said doctor also stated in his statement that the exact cause of death could not be ascertained on the basis of the postmortem report, however, he stated that it is not possible to say that the said injuries found on the body of the deceased during postmortem is not sufficient to cause the death of the Ishan Sharma.

10. Perused the record in the light of the submissions made by respective counsel for the parties.

11. Perusal of the record would reveal that the case was initially registered against the present applicants/accused under Sections 302/35 I.P.C. which was later converted into Sections 323, 284, 304 r/w Section 35 I.P.C. It has been argued by the State counsel that as per the statement of the witness PW5 Akash Kshetri, the applicants/accused subjected the deceased to physical torture and used to beat him mercilessly. The State counsel has also stated that the medical officer had proved these injuries stated in the postmortem report before the court. It has further been argued by the State counsel that as a result of these injuries, Ishan Sharma succumbed to it and therefore the case against the applicants/accused is clearly made out. However, the counsels for the applicants/accused have submitted that there is no direct evidence to prove the case against the applicants/accused and also no specific allegations have been leveled against them.

12. Perusal of the record would show that PW5/Akash Kshetri has deposed before the court that he and the deceased were planning to run away from the centre, when some members of 'the centre' got to know about the said planning and the applicants/accused Mehtab Ansari, Faizal, Aman along with other accused persons punished them and made them sit on the chair with cylinders hanging from their hands. The said witness also stated that they were mercilessly beaten with the sticks (danda) and the accused-Aman had also poured hot water on the deceased burning the deceased's left hand.

13. Having considered the entire material available on record, the applicants/accused are not entitled for bail at this stage.

14. In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicants/accused and the bail applications of the applicants/accused are liable to be rejected.

15. Accordingly, all the bail applications are hereby rejected.

16. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court is confined only to the disposal of the present bail applications and in no way be construed as an expression on the final merits of the case.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 19.09.2024

Mamta MAMTA RANI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=9f3ef5e40c7881302fcda45af446d3419e6d6 e990fbd25a59bdb957bba484d0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=5DE1751A4F1D9CABFD54852C9E689 11CA8B66DD26690A191648AB5D8DD004EF0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2024.10.01 15:09:09 +05'30'