Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 206 (UTT)

Shankar Sharma alias Ravi v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-02-27

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. This Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.138 of 2018, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 302, 307, 120B and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that on 25.05.2018, Smt. Bhajan Kaur, the informant, was in her house with her husband Daya Singh, daughter-in-law Charanjeet Kaur, brother of her daughter-in-law Devendra Singh alias Labba, his wife Babbi and his son Happy. At around 11:00 in the morning, suddenly two persons entered her house and pointed a country made pistol (Tamancha) at her chest. When she folded her hands, they ran outside. They fired at her husband Daya Singh, aged about 63 years, due to which he died near the cowshed outside the house. Devendra Singh alias Labba was hit by fire, due to which he was injured. After inquest proceedings, post-mortem and last rites of the deceased, an FIR was lodged on 25.05.2018 at 20:30 p.m. The FIR was registered against the two unknown persons. 3. During the investigation, this fact came to light that the deceased had two sons. One is Jagtar Singh alias Jagga and the name of the other son is Meher Singh. Jagtar Singh alias Jagga’s brother-in-law Devendra Singh alias Labba had enmity with one Gurmukh Singh alias Gorkha. Devendra Singh alias Labba had to go to jail because of Gurmukh Singh. To take revenge from Gurmukh Singh, Devendra Singh alias Labba (co-accused) along with his friend Aleem (co-accused) settled the matter with the present applicant and Narendra Sharma (co-accused) for Rs.10 lakhs. One lakh was given in advance. Daya Singh was shot as per the plan, while Devendra Singh alias Labba inflicted a bullet wound on himself. After the incident, the present applicant and co-accused Narendra Sharma fled away on a motorcycle, bearing No.UK06-L 9443. 4. On 29.05.2018, the present applicant with a country made pistol 315 bore and a live cartridge along with three other co-accused persons were arrested by the police on a secret information of the informant. At the time of arrest, one empty cartridge was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Narendra Sharma. 5. 4. On 29.05.2018, the present applicant with a country made pistol 315 bore and a live cartridge along with three other co-accused persons were arrested by the police on a secret information of the informant. At the time of arrest, one empty cartridge was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Narendra Sharma. 5. One bullet 315 bore and one empty cartridge 315 bore were recovered from the spot on 25.05.2018. One bullet 315 bore was recovered from the dead body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem on 25.05.2018. One country made pistol (Tamancha) and a pistol 315 bore were recovered at the instance of the present applicant and the co-accused Narendra Sharma. At the time of arrest of the present applicant and co-accused persons, the said motorcycle was recovered from their possession. The bullet recovered from the dead body of the deceased, the bullet and empty cartridge recovered from the seen of the incident and the country made pistol, live cartridge and empty cartridge, recovered from the accused persons, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 6. Heard Mrs. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 7. Mrs. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the alleged crime. According to the prosecution, Sukhwant Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Sukhdev Singh had seen two persons running away from the spot on a motorcycle. Mrs. Sarita Bisht, Advocate, argued that these three persons are not eye-witness of the incident. These three neither knew the present applicant nor any process of identification took place. The applicant was not the owner of the allegedly recovered motorcycle. The said recoveries were planted. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State, vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that PW(1) Smt. Bhajan Kaur has supported the case of the prosecution and she identified the applicant before the Court. 9. Mrs. Sarita Bisht, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has contended that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. Informant Smt. Bhajan Kaur (PW1) has stated that she came to know about the names of the shooters after being told by the police. 9. Mrs. Sarita Bisht, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has contended that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. Informant Smt. Bhajan Kaur (PW1) has stated that she came to know about the names of the shooters after being told by the police. Smt. Charanjeet Kaur (PW2), according to the prosecution, an eye-witness, has stated in her cross-examination that the shooters who shot and ran away, have not yet been arrested by the police. She is not even a hostile witness. 10. Mrs. Sarita Bisht, Advocate, submitted that the ballistic report dated 21.07.2018 states that it could not be possible to opine whether the bullet recovered from the dead body of the deceased had been fired through the pistols, marked as A-1 and A2, allegedly recovered from the possession of the present applicant. She further submitted that there is no evidence on record regarding conspiracy. She submitted that co-accused Devendra Singh alias Labba and co-accused Aleem have been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is in custody since 29.05.2018. He has no criminal history, and, he is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar. Therefore, there is no likelihood of applicant absconding as well. 11. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder fairly conceded that according to the ballistic report, it was not possible to opine whether the bullet, recovered from the dead body of the deceased, was fired through the pistols, recovered from the possession of the applicant/ recovered at the instance of the applicant. He also admitted that the applicant has no criminal history. 12. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 13. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 14. The Bail Application is allowed. 15. 14. The Bail Application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant-Shankar Sharma Alias Ravi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 16. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. 17. Registry is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order immediately by e-mail to the applicant-accused through the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary action.