Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 56 (UTT)

PRADEEP @ LUCKY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-01-12

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Applicant(s) Pradeep @ Lucky and Karaj Singh seek bail in case crime no. 322 of 2015, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, registered with police station, Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.09.2015, at about 07:00 P.M., when complainant Sarbjeet Singh Cheema and his relative Manmeet were unloading sand at his plot at Haridwar Road, Laksar, accused persons namely, Manpreet Singh, Karaj Singh, both sons of Dalvinder Singh; Surender Kaur w/o Dalvinder Singh and Dalvinder Singh s/o Kehar Singh accompanied with three unknown persons, who were armed with weapons, came there and opened fire on the complainant and Manmeet with the intention to kill them. Whereas the complainant escaped unhurt, Manmeet received firearm injury. The incident was witnessed by Satnam Singh, Nitesh, Gagandeep Singh and Rupender Singh and other persons. Injured Manmeet was first taken to Agarwal Medical Center, from where he was referred to higher center and was declared dead there. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant Karaj Singh that all his family members have been falsely implicated in the crime. Woman accused Surendra Kaur has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.04.2016. 5. The cross version of the case has been filed with the counter affidavit by learned counsel for the complainant in II bail application no. 177 of 2016. 6, It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant Pradeep alias Lucky that he was not named in the FIR. In the first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nobody named him. In the second statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of applicant Pradeep alias Lucky came to the fore vaguely on the basis of statement of prosecution witnesses. In the third statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of applicant Pradeep alias Lucky has, in fact, came to light. Affidavits were filed before the Investigating Officer regarding applicant Pradeep alias Lucky’s non-involvement in the case. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand submitted, among other things, that accused Pradeep alias Lucky is a gangster. Affidavits were filed before the Investigating Officer regarding applicant Pradeep alias Lucky’s non-involvement in the case. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand submitted, among other things, that accused Pradeep alias Lucky is a gangster. He has criminal history and, therefore, no one could dare to name him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant also emphasised that learned trial court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 437(7) Cr.P.C. has, therefore, rightly denied bail to the applicants. 8. Considering the entire conspectus of things and grounds taken up in the bail application, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail. 9. Let the applicants be released on bail on their each executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of court concerned. 10. Both the bail applications stands disposed of accordingly.