Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 129 (UTT)

Bindu Singh Moni v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-02-22

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. This is the bail cancellation application filed on behalf of the complainant. Respondent no. 2 i.e. Smt. Renu Devi was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2016. At the time, when the bail application of respondent no. 2 was allowed by this Court, the counter affidavit of the State was also on record, which was sworn by the Investigating Officer Mr. Mahesh Chand, who is also present in person today before this Court. 3. In the counter affidavit, charge-sheet was filed and the affidavit was sworn by the Investigating Officer Mr. Mahesh Chand stating that in case of respondent no. 2, he has filed charge-sheet only under Section 147 of IPC. This was not only a wrong statement but the charge-sheet, which has been filed before this Court was not the actual charge-sheet, which was filed before the court below. These facts have been brought to the notice of this Court in the present bail cancellation application and which have been duly affirmed by the State Counsel. 4. In view of the above, there are two aspects before this Court. First is whether the bail granted in favour of respondent no. 2 is liable to be cancelled on the development of these new grounds. The first bail order passed by this Court reads as under:- “The present applicant is a woman. It is alleged that on the festival of Holi a group of persons along with the present applicant armed with deadly sharp edged weapons attacked the complainant and his family members, as a result of which most of the family members of the complainant sustained injuries and the son of the complainant Shri Rakesh Singh ultimately succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that on the festival of Holi a group of persons along with the present applicant armed with deadly sharp edged weapons attacked the complainant and his family members, as a result of which most of the family members of the complainant sustained injuries and the son of the complainant Shri Rakesh Singh ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The F.I.R. was lodged against Ishwar Singh, Dilip Singh, Bhagat Singh, Pawan Singh, Bodh Singh, Laxman Singh including the present applicant Smt. Renu Devi (wife of Shri Laxman Singh) under Sections 147/148/307/302 of I.P.C. Counter affidavit was called for, in which it has been stated that though the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 147/148/307/302 of I.P.C. but as far as the present applicant is concerned the charge sheet has been filed only under Section 147 of I.P.C. against her. Learned counsel for the State also admits the contents of the charge sheet and admits that this is the position as far as charge sheet is concerned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that applicant is a woman and is in jail since 24.03.2016, a case of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant (Smt. Renu Devi) be enlarged on bail in the F.I.R. in question on her executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the equal amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 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.” 5. A perusal of the above order shows that the reasons why this Court had granted bail to the accused (Smt. Renu Devi) not merely on the ground that the charge-sheet has been filed against her under Section 147 of IPC but primarily it was done on the ground that the applicant was a woman, which clearly reflects from the order dated 24.06.2016. Therefore the new developments which as of now do not disclose the involvement of Ms. Renu Devi, do not call for the cancellation of her bail. This Court has further been informed that other co-accused are still in jail. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the bail cancellation application is rejected. 7. Therefore the new developments which as of now do not disclose the involvement of Ms. Renu Devi, do not call for the cancellation of her bail. This Court has further been informed that other co-accused are still in jail. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the bail cancellation application is rejected. 7. Another aspect of the matter, however, which is of much greater significance is that the Investigating Officer, who is a Sub Inspector in police has not only given a wrong statement before this Court by means of the affidavit but had also filed a wrong document before this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri D.K. Sharma is hereby directed that the order of this Court shall be brought into the notice of the Secretary Home, Government of Uttarakhand as well as the Director General of Police so that a disciplinary proceeding against the Investigating Officer i.e. Mahesh Chand may be initiated in accordance with law. 8. The Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to give a complete record of the first bail application along with the counter affidavit as well as the record of the bail cancellation application to the learned Additional Advocate General, who shall communicate this order to the Director General of Police as well as the Secretary Home, Government of Uttarakhand.