Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 119 (UTT)

RAHUL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2021-02-24

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2021
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Rahul, who is in judicial custody in FIR No.155 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 325, 307 and 504 IPC, Police Station Basant Vihar, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail, which is basis of the Criminal Case No.1254 of 2020 “State Vs. Rahul" pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected on 14.05.2020. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The first information report in the instant case was lodged on 19.11.2019. According to it, on that date, the victim who is the son of the informant proceeded towards Dakpathar, Near Kanwali Chowk, the traffic was halted and from the opposite direction, a vehicle bearing registration no.UK07CA 7014, driven by the applicant, approached the victim. The applicant started abusing the victim and when the victim objected to it, according to the first information report, the applicant alighted from his vehicle and hit the victim on his head with an iron rod. The victim was taken to the hospital. It is this FIR, in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and proceedings of Criminal Case No.1254 of 2020 instituted. It may be mentioned at this stage only that the Investigating Officer did not find commission of offence under Sections 147 and 149 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, according to the FIR, the applicant called four more persons telephonically, at the time of incident, but it is not found correct by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, offence under Sections 147 and 149 of IPC were dropped; it is also argued that in fact the applicant was also beaten at the time of incident, and the medical of the applicant was conducted on the same date; victim has been recovered; the applicant is the bread-winner of his family and he has small children to maintain. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2020. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the incident has been supported by the informant, witnesses and the Doctors. The injuries are grievous. It is submitted that in fact the applicant had sought compounding of the offences. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2020. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the incident has been supported by the informant, witnesses and the Doctors. The injuries are grievous. It is submitted that in fact the applicant had sought compounding of the offences. An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was moved by the applicant being C482 No.557 of 2020, which was rejected by the Court on 18.09.2020 by a detailed order. It is argued that it is not a fit case for bail. 7. It may be noted that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. 8. The State has not chosen to file counter affidavit to the instant bail application and it was filed in the first bail application. The Court had an occasion to peruse it. The informant, witnesses and the injured, all have supported the prosecution case. In fact, according to the Doctor, the injuries were serious in nature and it is only because of the timely treatment the victim could survive. It is undoubtedly a case of road-rage. The incident is captured on CCTV. When first bail application was heard, the CCTV footages were run in the Court in the presence of one and all. 9. Undoubtedly the bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Apart from other factors, gravity of an offence, circumstances under which it is done and other factors are also relevant to consider the bail. 10. Having considered all the factors, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the second bail application deserves to be rejected. 11. The second bail application is rejected.