BA1/712/2021 of SANJU VISHWAS Vs STATE OF UTTARKAHAND

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2021-09-22
Case number: 712 of 2021

Parties

BA1 No. 712 of 2021 Hon’ble N.S.Dhanik, J. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr (PETITIONER)
concocted FIR. _Per contra_, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail and argued that the FIR was lodged based on specific allegations and evidence on record stating that th (RESPONDENT)

Statutes cited (1)

indian penal code (1860)

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

Show all Body

|**SL.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,** **reports, orders or** **proceedings or** **directions and** **Registrar’s order** **with Signatures**|**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|
||||BA1 No. 712 of 2021 **Hon’ble N.S.Dhanik, J.** Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. V. K. Jemini, learned Deputy A.G. assisted by Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the complainant. The applicant Sanju Vishwas, who is in Jail in connection with FIR No. 04 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station Transit Camp, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no concrete evidence to the effect that the applicant has committed the alleged murder, as the applicant and other accused persons were over powered by huge group of persons and the applicant was not in position to do murder in the presence of the entire community, who were beating and misbehaving with the accused-applicant; no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged crime; due to material contradictions, the presence of the complainant is highly doubtful at the place of occurrence; there is no motive to commit the alleged crime, which is clear from perusal of the statements of the eyewitnesses; the applicant has wrongly been implicated in the alleged crime on the basis of false and|

||||concocted FIR. _Per contra_, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail and argued that the FIR was lodged based on specific allegations and evidence on record stating that the applicant fired the firearm on the forehead of the deceased from very close range, which made deceased succumb to his injuries causing death. This fact is duly corroborated from post-mortem report; the firearm was recovered from the applicant at the time of his arrest as is clear from the arrest/recovery memo dated 04.01.2019; the weapon used in murder was recovered from the applicant; in the statements of prosecution witnesses, clear role has been assigned to the applicant; there is clinching evidence against the applicant. Further, the trial is at its fag end since all the prosecution witnesses have been examined in trial. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail stating that heinous crime of murder has been committed by the applicant. Upon hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this is not fit case for bail. The bail application is hereby rejected. **( N.S.Dh an ik , J.)** 22.09.2021 Kaushal||
|---|---|---|---|---|