[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Satish @ Koka vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No. 1 of 2024 (Bail Application)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2019
Satish @ Koka ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing)
assisted by Mr. Rachit Manglik, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State.
Coram :Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and
order dated 04.11.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 221 of 2012,
State v. Satish @ Koka, by the court of 1st Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted
under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 500/-.
2. This is an admitted appeal. The appellant seeks bail
during pendency of the appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on bail application.
4. According to the prosecution, on 07.08.2018 at 09:00 in
the morning, when the deceased was in the field, he was attacked by
the appellant and others, due to which he died. FIR records that
Shabir and others had also witnessed the incident.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant submits
that the entire prosecution case is false; due to enmity, the appellant
has falsely been foisted in the case. He submits that the FIR was
lodged against three named persons, but charge sheet has been filed
only against the appellant; the FIR records that hair were recovered
from the hands of the deceased, but forensically they have not been
matched with the appellant. It is argued that the eye-witnesses Shabir
and Jugendra have not been examined. He submits that, in fact, the
dead body of the deceased was found in open field and due to enmity
he has falsely been implicated.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that the witnesses have
supported the prosecution case.
7. It is a stage of bail post conviction. The appellant does
not have a privilege of presumption of innocence as, he is a convict.
Whatever discussion is made at this stage shall confine to the disposal
of the bail application, which shall have no bearing on the subsequent
proceedings of the case.
8. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged against the appellant and
two of his brothers, but the charge sheet has been filed only against
the appellant. It is also admitted that hair were recovered from the fist
of the deceased, but they did not match forensically with the appellant
or any of the named accused.
9. Having considered this and other attending factors, this
Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of the
sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
12. Let the appellant be released on bail, during the
pendency of the appeal, on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
13. List the criminal appeal for final hearing in due course.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J)
30.12.2025 30.12.2025
Avneet/
