Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 598 (UTT)

Virendra Manral v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-20

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Applicant-Virendra Manral, who is in jail in connection with FIR No.177 of 2016, relating to offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120B of IPC, registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. The evidence against the applicant is that a mobile sim was recovered from the possession of Saren Sandhu @ Preet, a hired assassin, from which conversation took place between the applicant and Saren Sandhu @ Preet after the incident. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant admits that it was a fake sim card which does not belong to Saren Sandhu @ Preet. 5. Prosecution case is that Saren Sandhu @ Preet was hired by the present applicant to kill Hemant Phartiyal. According to the prosecution, there was an enmity between present applicant and deceased on mining activity. 6. In reply to this, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant stated that there is no recovery memo indicating that the SIM was recovered either at the instance or at the pointing of Saren Sandhu @ Preet and co-accused Devendra Singh @ Bau. She also pleaded that except the statement of co-accused, there is no evidence against the present applicant and location of mobile from which conversation took place between the present applicant is also not known. 7. Prosecution evidence is that Saren Sandhu @ Preet hired by present applicant was in regular touch with the present applicant. SIM card was in the name of other person. 8. Learned Dy. Advocate General also read the statement of one Nandan Singh, witness, that Devendra Singh @ Bau and his friend were talking to the deceased on mobile. 9. A first information report was lodged against unknown assailants stating therein that on 28.06.2016, the deceased left from his house at 03.00 p.m. in his car. Informant was informed telephonically that his brother was killed by unidentified assailants. The statement of co-accused Devendra Singh @ Bau has been enclosed with the bail application. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Devendra Singh @ Bau stated that Virendra Manral, present applicant contacted me to eliminate Hemant Phartiyal. 10. According to the Devendra Singh @ Bau, he contacted Saren Sandhu @ Preet to kill Hemant Phartiyal. 11. The statement of co-accused Devendra Singh @ Bau has been enclosed with the bail application. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Devendra Singh @ Bau stated that Virendra Manral, present applicant contacted me to eliminate Hemant Phartiyal. 10. According to the Devendra Singh @ Bau, he contacted Saren Sandhu @ Preet to kill Hemant Phartiyal. 11. He also gave two countrymade pistol to him. He also arranged for stay of Saren Sandhu @ Preet. He and Saren Sandhu @ Preet fired upon the victim with countrymade pistol and killed him. 12. Thus, there is only a statement of co-accused and call details against the applicant. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that as many as 15 cases are pending against the applicant and he is a history-sheeter. 13. Learned Senior counsel submitted that applicant has been acquitted in nine criminal cases and six criminal cases are pending against him in which the applicant is on bail. 14. On the basis of above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that applicant should be granted bail. 15. The Bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Virendra Manral be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the undertaking that if the applicant misuses the bail, thus granted to him, trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail after hearing him, in accordance with law.