BA1/1256/2020 of DEEPAK SINGH BISHT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No. 1256 of 2020

Deepak Singh Bisht

...Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….Respondent

Present:- Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sachin Panwar, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Applicant Deepak Singh Bisht, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 13 of 2020, under Sections 188, 269, 270, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Section 51 (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 2/3 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 and Section 60/72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, Police Station Chaukhutiya, District Almora, has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3. According to the FIR, on 10.07.2020, Police on patrolling, signal the vehicle to stop at about 11:19 PM, but the vehicle did not stop. The Police party informed another Police group, which parked their official vehicle in the middle of the road and thereafter with torch, signalled the vehicle to stop. The vehicle was stopped, applicant was driver of it and large quantity of liquor was recovered from him (149 boxes). The applicant produced certain permits and other documents to exhibit authority to carry the liquor, but those documents were forged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that co-accused has already been granted bail, the main accused was Mahesh Singh Bisht, who has not been arrested by the Police and he has been granted protection by this Court; applicant is falsely implicated; there

is no independent witness of recovery and procedure to be followed at the time of arrest was not followed in the case.

5. On behalf of the State, it is argued that huge quantity of liquor was recovered of which, the applicant has no authority and it has been confirmed by the Excise Inspector in his statement given to the Investigation Officer.

6. In the hills of Uttarakhand, mid-night at about 11:19 for the first time the applicant was intercepted, when he was driving the vehicle, but he did not stop and thereafter, he was forced to stop the vehicle by another group of Police party. Applicant was carrying huge quantity of liquor in the vehicle with forged documents. The offence in itself is serious and its consequences are more serious in the hills. Therefore, considering all the attending facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not case fit for bail.

7. The bail application is rejected.

Shubham

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

11.09.2020