NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph — Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

BA1/289/2024 of SUBHAM ALIAS SHIVAM ALIAS GOLU Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date
2024-12-11
Case number
289 of 2024

Parties

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

Show all Body

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 289 of 2024

Subham alias Shivam alias Golu

….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State. Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the informant.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Subham alias Shivam alias Golu is in judicial custody in FIR No. 235 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 28.09.2023, at about 09:00 p.m., the applicant along with the co-accused entered into the house of the informant and attacked the husband of the informant, due to which he sustained serious injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not been assigned the role of assault; the role of assault has been assigned to the co-accused; the FIR is delayed by six days.

5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that it is the applicant, who exhorted the co-accused to attack the injured. It is argued that the injured was serious, therefore, the priority was to give him treatment; thereafter, when stabilized, the FIR was lodged.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the injuries are grievous in nature and recovery is made at the instance of the applicant.

7. It is stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. The discussion is being made with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall not have any bearing at the trial.

8. The injured Vijay Pal has stated that he was hit by the co-accused Ashwini Kumar with the sword. Admittedly, the role of hitting the injured is assigned to the co-accused.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Avneet/

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 15.03.2024