[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Sandeep Ray vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.01 of 2024 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2024
Sandeep Ray ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Anmol Sandhu, Advocates for the informant.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against
judgment and order dated 07/08.08.2024, passed in Sessions
Trial No.67 of 2017, State Vs. Sandeep Ray, by the court of 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh
Nagar. By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
under Sections 302, 307 and 406 IPC.
2. Heard.
3. This appeal has already been admitted.
4. The LCR has already been received.
5. List in due course for final hearing.
6. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.01 of 2024.
7. According to the FIR, the appellant was working in
a factory in the name and style of S.G. Foods as accountant. He
had done some misappropriation in the factory. Therefore, PW1,
Chaudhary Manoj Kumar, the informant, had questioned the
appellant, to which the appellant assured him that report may not
be lodged against him. He would repay the entire amount. On
06.12.2016, when PW1, Chaudhary Manoj Kumar, the informant,
along with his parents and nephew, Utkarsh Chaudhary, was
going towards factory, they noticed the appellant. PW1,
Chaudhary Manoj Kumar, the informant, called the appellant and
asked him as to why he has not returned the money. At it, in a fit
of rage, the appellant went inside the factory, took the keys of a
truck and hit the family members of PW1, Chaudhary Manoj
Kumar, the informant, due to which, Utkarsh died at 04:20 pm,
and the mother of PW1, Chaudhary Manoj Kumar, the informant,
also sustained injuries. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
entire case is false; initially, when the post-mortem was done on
07.12.2016, at 08:10 am, it was noted as an accidental case, as
per police papers. So was it recorded in the inquest report.
Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 07.12.2016, in the afternoon at
02:20 pm, and a case under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was lodged
under heavy political pressure. It is also argued that, in fact,
according to the FIR, Sandeep Arora and Sumit Sahani had
witnessed the incident, but they have not been examined as
witnesses in the court.
9. Learned counsel for the informant submits that
the appellant had motive to kill the deceased. PW7, Smt. Krishna
Devi, is the injured witness. She sustained injuries in the
incident, which has been proved by PW8, Dr. Paramjeet Singh
Cheema.
10. In reply to it, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that, in fact, there is no medical examination report of
PW7, Smt. Krishna Devi, the injured. Merely a certificate has been
given by PW8, Dr. Paramjeet Singh Cheema, which further doubts
the prosecution case.
11. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments, as
advanced by learned counsel for the informant.
12. It is a stage of bail post conviction. 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 proceedings.
13. Admittedly, the FIR is delayed in this matter. What
would be its effect, it would be examined during the hearing of the
case. It is also a fact that on 07.12.2016, at 08:10 am, when the
post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, in the history, it is
recorded that it is accidental death, as per the police papers. So is
it written in the inquest, which began on 06.12.2016, at 05:00
pm. It would also fall for scrutiny as to how it is a case under
Sections 302 and 307 IPC when in the initial documents, i.e. the
post-mortem report and the inquest report, it is so stated
categorically that it was a case of accidental death.
14. Having considered these aspects and other
attending factors, we are of the view that it is a case in which the
execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be
enlarged on bail.
15. The bail application is allowed.
16. The sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
17. 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.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.04.2026
Ravi Bisht
