Uttarakhand High Court
Urmila Alias Chhanni Wali And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2024
Urmila Alias Chhanni Wali and another ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal and Mr. P.K. Chauhan, Advocates
for the appellants.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment
and order dated 22/24.08.2024 passed in Sessions Trial
No. 172 of 2012, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Smt. Urmila @
Chhanni Wali, by the court of 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellants have been convicted
under Section 304 read with 34 and Section 323 read with
34 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-
(i) Under Section 304 read with 34 IPC - to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period
of three months. The appellant has sought
bail in this appeal.
(ii) Under Section 323 read with 34 IPC - to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period
of one month.
The appellant has sought bail in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution case, the appellants
were neighbours of the informant. The appellants were
indulged in illegal activities. The deceased has helped police
in the matter once, due to which there was enmity. On
08.03.2012, the appellants armed with lathi, danda and
stones attacked the husband of the informant Jang
Bahadur and others due to which Jang Bahadur died.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the independent witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case. The independent eyewitness PW1
Bachhiya has not supported the prosecution case.
Therefore, it is a case fit for bail. The appellant was on bail
during trial. He has not misused the bail. He is in custody
for more than two years.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that many
eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution case. The
deceased had multiple injuries on his person.
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is
not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the
caveat that any observation made in this order shall have
no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any
other proceedings.
7. The appellant is a convict. The presumption of
innocence is not available to him which is otherwise
available to the under trial. It is true that PW3 Bachhiya in
her cross examination has not supported the prosecution
case. There are multiple eyewitnesses like PW1 Sumitra,
PW2 Roshan, PW10 Ajay, who is also injured and PW12
Manoj Yadav. They all have supported the prosecution case,
as stated that PW10 Ajay sustained injury in the incident.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
10. List for hearing the appeal on 01.05.2025.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.02.2025
Jitendra
