Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 204 (UTT)

Virendra Singh @ Vicky v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-02-25

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Since all these bail applications arising out of the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Applicants Virendra Singh @ Vicky, Shiv Kumar @ Pinki, Rijul Verma and Bijendra @ Bittu are in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.0605 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 304, 342, 364A and 120B IPC, Police Station Gangnahar, District-Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The prosecution case as revealed is as follows : The deceased was into the property business. He wanted to sell a property of Sher Singh by impersonating. He persuaded Iqbal to impersonate Sher Singh. He agreed. Documents were forged. The deal was finalized with one Ashok Verma and Rs. 5 Lakhs were taken in advance, but, subsequently, the deal could not be finalized, as the identity of Iqbal was disclosed in the meanwhile. It is the case that thereafter Ashok Verma, his son applicant Rizul Verma, Applicant Shiv Kumar @ Pinki, Applicant Virendra Singh @ Vicky and Applicant Bijendra @ Bittu confined the deceased and Iqbal in a room. They were threatened to pay Rs. 12 Lakhs. The room was in the office of Ashok Verma. The deceased, Applicant Shiv Kumar @ Pinki and Applicant Virendra Singh @ Vicky, according to the prosecution, stayed in the room the whole night on 25.07.2022. Next morning, the dead body of Imran was found on the road adjacent to the building. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants-Rijul Verma and Virendra Singh @ Vicky would submit that they both were not inside the room; the room was locked from outside; they had left the room; the deceased tried to run away through the window and in the process, he died. One of the co-accused Uma Kant with a similar role had already been granted on bail, therefore it is the case fit for bail. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants- Shiv Kumar @ Pinki and Bijendra @Bittu would submit that the only witness of the incident is Iqbal. He has told the Investigating Officer that all of them had slept in the room except deceased Imran, who was much uncomfortable. It is submitted that he tried to run away, there was a window, having a cable horizontally placed. He has told the Investigating Officer that all of them had slept in the room except deceased Imran, who was much uncomfortable. It is submitted that he tried to run away, there was a window, having a cable horizontally placed. The Investigating Officer had noted the scene of occurrence and noted that there were step marks on the wall between 4th and 5th floor. The cable had broken uptill 4th floor. The dead body had white marks on its feet. It shows that in fact, in the process of running away from the confinement, the deceased fell down and died. 7. It is also argued that there was no weapon recovered from the applicants. There were no blood stain marks. The Investigating Officer did not find it a case of murder. He filed charge-sheet under Section 304 of IPC. 8. Learned senior counsel for the informant would submit that in fact, the investigation has not been fair in the case. It is argued that under the political pressure, the Investigating Officer has not unearthed the truth. It is argued that in fact, Ashok Verma is the prime accused. He directed the co-accused to confine the deceased and witness Iqbal. Applicant Rijul Verma, who happens to be the son of Ashok Verma threatened the hostages by a rifle and demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs. He was a frequent visitor of the place where the deceased was confined. The deceased was confined in the office of Ashok Verma, who happens to be the father of Rizul Verma. 9. Learned senior counsel would submit that the circumstances speaks that in fact, the deceased was brutally killed and thereafter thrown from the window. In fact, during the course of hearing, the CCTV footage has been run in the Court in the presence of all, which reveals that a person fell from the building on the road. It is argued that it is the deceased Imran. Learned senior counsel would submit that the kind of injuries which deceased has, cannot be sustained by a fall from the roof. There are multiple injuries, 18 in numbers; the hand of the deceased was twisted, but, it is argued that Investigating Officer has not been fair in submitting the charge-sheet under Section 304 of IPC. 10. Learned senior counsel would submit that the kind of injuries which deceased has, cannot be sustained by a fall from the roof. There are multiple injuries, 18 in numbers; the hand of the deceased was twisted, but, it is argued that Investigating Officer has not been fair in submitting the charge-sheet under Section 304 of IPC. 10. Learned state counsel in fact would submit that according to the prosecution, the deceased was hostage in a room, where applicant Shiv Kumar @ Pinki and applicant Bijendra @ Bittu was also confined. They all were asleep in the night, when the deceased tried to run away from the room, he fell down and died. 11. The activities noted in the CCTV footage have been noted by the Investigating Officer in his Case Diary, which has been rendered at the time of hearing. In the case of bail, much of the discussion is not expected. The discussion is made with the observation that any observation made in this order shall not have any bearing in the trial or any other prosecution case. 12. The observation with regard to the person in the room as noted by the Investigating Officer reveals that in fact, the applicant Rizul Verma and Virendra Singh @ Vicky had left the room sometime at about 10:03 PM. One of the co-accused Uma Kant was also not in the room in the night. He had already been granted bail. What is being argued is that the role of Rijul Verma is distinct than the role of Uma Kant. Rijul Verma happens to be the son of Ashok Verma, who is the main culprit and he was extracting money from the deceased and other witness Iqbal. He had threatened the deceased and other witnesses. It was his premises. 13. Admittedly, Rijul Verma and Virendra Singh @ Vicky were not inside the room, where the deceased was confined. Next morning, the deceased was found dead. 14. Having considered, the entirety of the fact, this Court is of the view that the applicants- Rijul Verma and applicant Virendra Singh @ Vicky are entitled to bail. 15. The role of applicants Shiv Kumar @ Pinki and Bijendra @ Bittu is little different. They were in the room, where the deceased along with witness Iqbal were confined. Iqbal is the only person who is a witness of the incident. 15. The role of applicants Shiv Kumar @ Pinki and Bijendra @ Bittu is little different. They were in the room, where the deceased along with witness Iqbal were confined. Iqbal is the only person who is a witness of the incident. He tells that on the date of the incident in the night, the applicants Shiv Kumar @ Pinki as well as Bijendra @ Bittu were also asleep on the floor, but, deceased Imran was still sitting on the chair. In the morning, he tells that deceased Imran was not inside the room. He also told that the room was locked from outside. The description of the window has been given by the Investigating Officer, there was a sizeable window. The Investigating Officer records that there were step marks in the wall joining 4th and 5th floor. He also noted white marks at the feet of the deceased. 16. It is categorical case of the prosecution that the deceased wanted to escape from the custody and in that process he died. According to the prosecution, no blood stain marks or a sign of struggle was detected from the room. In fact, there would be various questions which would require to be answered during trial. 17. Having considered the entirety of facts, these applicants are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 18. The bail applications are allowed. 19. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amounts, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.