Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/186/2022 on 27 February, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
IA 6/2024 (For Second Bail Application)
In
CRLA No. 186 of 2022
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present applicant 'Rajesh Thapa' moved a
second bail application (IA 6/2024). The first bail
application was rejected by the Coordinate Bench on
16.05.2023 by a detailed and well reasoned order. Now,
the second bail application has been moved on the
ground that in the said crime there were 4 accused
persons, one is the present applicant and other three
are Dheeraj Tomar, Rahul and Shekhar Thapa. Since,
the present applicant was juvenile therefore he was
tried as such and convicted by the Juvenile Court by a
judgment and order dated 23.04.2022 under Sections
304 Part II IPC r/w Section 323, 325 and 308 of IPC
with the maximum sentence of 7 years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that the other three accused were tried in a regular trial
since they were not major and subsequently by the
judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 all the other three
co accused Dheeraj Tomar, Rahul and Shekhar Thapa
were acquitted from the charge.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all
these three other accused were acquitted with the same
set of evidence.
6. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned A.G.A.
submits that there is one eye witness i.e. PW 3 Mr.
Vishesh Sehgal, who in his statement raised specific
charge against the present applicant and not stated
anything against three accused persons and that is the
reason that the other three accused were acquitted.
7. In response to this, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that in fact while convicting the
other three co accused the Trial Court completely
disbelief the PW3.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the present applicant is in a long incarceration and
since last 2 years 8 months he is in jail. He further
submits that the first bail application was rejected on
16.05.2023 and thereafter the other three co accused
were acquitted by the Trial Court on 15.02.2024.
9. After hearing the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties and further taking into
consideration that after rejection of the first bail
application subsequently in a separate regular trial the
three co accused were acquitted by the Trial Court and
furthermore the appellant is in jail since last more than
2 years 8 months this court is of the view that the
appellant deserves for bail.
10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
the merit of the case the second bail application is
allowed.
11. Let the appellant 'Rajesh Thapa' be released on
bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties
each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned. Realisation of fine shall also remain
suspended.
12. List this matter in the month of October, 2025.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
27.02.2025
PR
