Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 282 (UTT)

VARUN PANDEY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-06-29

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. P.S. Saun, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State, Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records. 2. The applicant is in jail being implicated in F.I.R. No. 539 of 2015, under Section 307 of I.P.C. at P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. In the present matter, this Court vide order dated 11.04.2016 granted interim bail to the applicant for appearing in the B.Com examination. Thereafter, the applicant surrendered before the court concerned, within the stipulated time, as directed by this Court. 4. Now, learned counsel for the applicant argues on the regular bail, which is being vehemently opposed by Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the applicant had sought interim bail on baseless grounds. As per the information received by the complainant under RTI, he (applicant) did not appear in any examination. Only for this reason, this Court asked the learned State counsel to get instruction in the matter and record the statement of the Principal of the Sardar Bhagat Singh Government P.G. College, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the Controller of Examination, Kumaon University in order to ascertain this fact whether the applicant had appeared in the examination or not. Now the statement of the above referred persons are available on record, which clearly states that Himanshu Pandey appeared in the examination, but Himanshu Pandey is another name of the applicant – Varun Pandey. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant appeared in the examination and duly signed the verification form in the presence of Invigilator. He further submits that the applicant never misused the interim bail granted by this Court. Moreover, the main allegations are against another co-accused, namely, Kaushal Sharma, whose bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2016. Without saying anything on the merit of the case, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant has been able to make out a case of bail accordingly. The bail application is allowed. 6. Without saying anything on the merit of the case, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant has been able to make out a case of bail accordingly. The bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant (Varun Pandey) be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the equal amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 7. It is made clear that any observations made by this Court are only for the purposes of disposal of bail application. It shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.