Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 587 (UTT)

DALVEER SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-12-22

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present Bail Applications are moved seeking regular bail in FIR no. 124 of 2015 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel appearing for Dalveer Singh, Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Gurdev Singh and Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for Jagvir Singh and Lakhvir Singh have stated that all the applicants were armed either with stick or sword, however, there was no injury on the body of the deceased Jaymal Singh and injured Surjeet Singh and Suveg Singh caused by stick or sword. They further contended that deceased Jaymal Singh and injured Surjeet Singh and Suveg Singh were having only gunshot injuries, therefore, applicants should be enlarged on bail. 3. As per the prosecution story, on 17.07.20015, at 10:00 a.m., when Jaymal Singh, deceased, injured Surjeet Singh along with injured Suveg Singh were present in their agricultural field, 17 accused named in the FIR came on the spot armed with firearm, sword and sticks and started firing and assaulting with intention to kill them. Having received gunshot injuries, Jaymal Singh died on the spot while Surjeet Singh and Suveg Singh were referred to the hospital. After committing the crime, all the 17 accused left the spot together. 4. As per Section 149 IPC, coming on the spot armed with the deadly weapons and after committing the crime, leaving the spot together clearly demonstrates common object. If common object is demonstrated specific role played by each and every accused becomes irrelevant. 5. Moreover, in the present case, after investigation chargesheet has been filed against all the 17 named accused. Injured Surjeet Singh and Suveg Singh have supported prosecution story in their statement recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. Not only this, Nirmal Singh and Sukhdev Singh, have also supported the prosecution story in their statement recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Bail was granted to one of the accused Rajendra Singh by this Court only on the ground that he is of 70 years old and is having very weak eyesight, therefore, case of co-accused Rajendra Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail, is quite different. 7. 6. Bail was granted to one of the accused Rajendra Singh by this Court only on the ground that he is of 70 years old and is having very weak eyesight, therefore, case of co-accused Rajendra Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail, is quite different. 7. To my mind, since, statements of injured Surjeet Singh and Suveg Singh as well as statements of other eye witnesses are yet to be recorded before the Trial Court, therefore, if accused persons are enlarged on bail, they may try to influence the witnesses and injured. 8. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail at this stage. Therefore, all the Bail Applications are rejected. 8. Let copy of this order be placed in each and every connected bail application.