Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 196 (UTT)

Lalit Sethi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-13

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - Both these two bail applications are filed for regular bail in connection with the F.I.R. No. 130 of 2019, registered with police station, Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860. Both these bail applications are related to the same F.I.R., therefore, both these bail applications are consolidated to decide by this common order. 2. In brief, according to the F.I.R. dated 24.09.2019, Akash alias Raja (deceased), cousin brother of the informant Ashish Habart, told the informant that one Suraj Waldiya (present applicant in BA1 No. 2437 of 2019) had invited him at his house and by taking Rs. 500/- and a Motorcycle from the informant, the deceased went to the house of the applicant Suraj Waldiya on 23.09.2019. But, cousin brother of the informant did not return till night. His mobile was switched off. In the night of 23.09.2019, some persons uploaded the photo of the dead body of Akash alias Raja on WhatsApp Group. The informant, one Manish and Kapil searched Akash alias Raja and they found the dead body of the deceased Akash alias Raja at G.I.C. field. The F.I.R. was lodged against the present applicants. 3. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Singh, Investigating Officer of this case, is present with the Case Diary. After perusal the Case Diary, no differences of facts are found in hand written and computerized F.I.Rs., as alleged by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants on 05.03.2020. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the applicants and the learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Both the applicants are facing trial. After perusal the Case Diary, no differences of facts are found in hand written and computerized F.I.Rs., as alleged by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants on 05.03.2020. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the applicants and the learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Both the applicants are facing trial. The learned Senior Advocate for both the applicants submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence; no one had seen the deceased with the applicants; the applicants are innocent persons; they have been falsely implicated; according to the post-mortem report, there was no external injury on the body of the deceased; the deceased was the friend of the applicants; according to the F.I.R., the name of the applicant Lalit Sethi was not disclosed by the deceased; there are contradictions in the evidences of the so called witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. ; there was no motive to cause death; the F.I.R. was lodged after 24 hours; no prima facie case under Section 304 of the I.P.C. is made out against the applicants; the applicants have no criminal history; the applicants are in custody since the month of September, 2019. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail applications. The learned counsel for the State submits that during the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses, namely, Ashish Habart, Smt. Saroj Singh and Smt. Parwati Devi were recorded and these all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution; there is settled law that delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution nor can delay itself create any suspicion about the truthfulness of the version given by the informant and witnesses. However, the learned counsel for the State concedes that the applicants have no criminal history. 7. In determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment shall be taken into consideration. 8. However, the learned counsel for the State concedes that the applicants have no criminal history. 7. In determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment shall be taken into consideration. 8. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , the Honble Apex Court has held that it is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail, are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence, (ii) nature and gravity of charge, (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated, (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 9. While dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie considering why bail is being granted particularly where an accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order dehors reasons suffers from non-application of mind as observed by the Honble Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, (2002)3 SCC 598 . 10. A ratio decidendi of the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi and another, 2018(1) CCSC 117 is that in serious crimes, the mere fact that the accused is in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration to release the accused on bail. 11. From the aforesaid principles, it is quite clear that an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. 12. According to the prosecution, on 23.09.2019, the deceased told the informant, the cousin brother of the deceased, that the present applicant Suraj Waldiya called him and the deceased demanded Rs. 500/- and a motorcycle from the informant. Thereafter, the deceased went to the house of the applicant Suraj Waldiya after taking Rs. 500/- and a motorcycle of the informant. On the same day, i.e. 23.09.2019, in the night, the dead body of the deceased was seen by the informant in WhatsApp Group. 500/- and a motorcycle from the informant. Thereafter, the deceased went to the house of the applicant Suraj Waldiya after taking Rs. 500/- and a motorcycle of the informant. On the same day, i.e. 23.09.2019, in the night, the dead body of the deceased was seen by the informant in WhatsApp Group. The informant, one Manish and Kapil searched the dead body of the deceased and they found the same at the corner of the G.I.C. field. During the investigation, the statement of the mother of the applicant Suraj Waldiya was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Smt. Parwati Devi, mother of the applicant Suraj Waldiya, stated that on 23.09.2019, the deceased came to her house. At that time, he was in a state of intoxication and went to the room of his son. In the evening at about 7:30-7:45, she saw both the applicants, Suraj Waldiya and Lalit Sethi were sitting the deceased on a motorcycle. The present applicant Lalit Sethi was sitting on the motorcycle in front, the deceased in the middle and the present applicant Suraj Waldiya at the end. When she asked the applicant Suraj Waldiya where he was taking the deceased, he told that he was taking him to the hospital. However, she stated that she did not know whether the deceased was dead or alive at that time. Later, she heard the news that these two persons, present applicants, had thrown the deceased into the G.I.C. field. The applicants were not found to take the deceased to the hospital. The cause of death could not ascertained in the post-mortem report, therefore, viscera was preserved. As per the report dated 17.12.2019 of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Organo Chloro Insecticide poison had been detected in the viscera of the dead body of the deceased. 13. From the perusal of the evidences, collected during the investigation, it prima facie appears that the applicants were involved in this crime. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicants/accused persons. There is no good ground has been made out for enlarging the applicants on bail at this stage, therefore, the bail applications are liable to be rejected. Both the bail applications are rejected accordingly. 14. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicants/accused persons. There is no good ground has been made out for enlarging the applicants on bail at this stage, therefore, the bail applications are liable to be rejected. Both the bail applications are rejected accordingly. 14. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail applications are limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to whether the bail applications should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the trial of the case.