Ramanand ...........Appellant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2140 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ramanand ...........Appellant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 February, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Bail Application (IA) No.01 of 2023
                             In
             Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2023

Ramanand                            ...........Appellant/Applicant

                                 Vs.

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



Present :   Ms. Kavaya Mehrishi (through video conferencing) and Ms.
            Gurbani Singh, Advocates for the appellant/applicant.
            Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief
            Holder for the State.


                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the

judgment and order dated 25/27.07.2023, recorded in

Sessions Trial No.323 of 2010, State of Uttarakhand vs.

Ramanand, by the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge,

Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the

appellant has been convicted and sentenced under

Section 304 IPC. The appellant has preferred the bail

application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the prosecution case, on

20.01.2010, at 06:00 in the morning, the appellant hit the

deceased Kishore on his head, due to which, he died.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

would submit that there is no direct evidence in the

matter; the weapon of offence has not been recovered. She

would submit that one of the witnesses has stated that

there were many other persons present at the spot, who

ran away. Therefore, she would submit that it is doubtful,

as to who was the injured.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that there

are eye-witnesses of the incident. PW1 Sunderpal, PW2

Vipin and PW4 Pradeep Kumar have witnessed the

incident and stated, as to how the appellant hits the

deceased on his head.

6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at

this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the

controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat

that any observation made at this stage shall have no

bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

7. The appellant is a convict. The principle that

governs the bail post conviction is somewhat different

than the principles that are governed for under trial. In

the present case, the presumption of innocence, as such

is not available to the appellant. There are eye-witnesses,

who have stated that the appellant hit the deceased on

his head, due to which, he died.

8. Having considered, there is no ground to

enlarge the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the bail

application of the appellant deserves to be rejected.

9. The bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.02.2025 Sanjay