BA2/117/2020 of GURTEJ SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Parties
- Gurtej Singh (PETITIONER)
- State of Uttarakhand (RESPONDENT)
Statutes cited (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No. 117 of 2020
Gurtej Singh
...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
….Respondent
Present:-
Mr. S.R.S Gill, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Gurtej Singh, who is in judicial custody, in FIR No. 312 of 2019, under Sections 392, 411 and 34 IPC, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital has sought his release on bail.
2. This matter is taken up and heard through Video Conferencing.
3. According to the FIR, on 12.08.2019 at 01:00 in the mid-night, when the informant Deepak was driving vehicle bearing Registration No. UK04Z0298, some armed assailants looted the vehicle and his mobile-phone and they dropped driver Deepak at distance. It so happened, immediately Police was informed and it was also informed that the vehicle was fixed with GPS. Police was given its password and the Police followed the car. It was recovered from Bareilly area when the applicant was in the vehicle. The other person in the vehicle managed to escape. At the time of recovery, country made pistol was also recovered from the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would make submission that the applicant is in custody since 13.08.2019, hence he may be granted bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that applicant is habitual offender. There have been four cases already pending against him and there is evidence against him, which makes case for rejection of the bail.
6. It is case of looting of vehicle at gun-point. It is matter of chance that GPS was fixed in the vehicle so that the applicant could be apprehended. Otherwise, he would have disappeared somewhere in the crowd.
7. Having considered all the attending factors, this Court is of the view that this is not case fit for bail and the bail application deserves to be rejected.
8. The second bail application is rejected.
Shubham
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 21.11.2020