Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 98 (UTT)

Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-16

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Gurmeet Kaur is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.128 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Khatima, District- Udham Singh Nagar. She has sought her release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 24.05.2022, the applicant along with the co-accused killed the deceased Kulwant Singh in a forest by cutting his hands and breaking the other parts of the body. In fact, in the FIR, suspicion has been raised against the applicant and the co-accused. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that it is a false case; the applicant and the informant had old enmity because in the year 2021, the deceased had molested the daughter of the applicant, of which a report was lodged against the deceased. In that matter, it is argued that police has submitted a final report, but on a protest petition, the matter is still pending. Learned Senior Counsel would also argue that, in fact, the deceased was a history sheeter. There are many cases pending against him. He was earlier issued a notice under Section 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Reference has been made to Annexure-4, a copy of the notice. This has been referred to argue that it reveals that the applicant and the deceased had enmity. It is also argued that this notice, which is Annexure-4, also reveals that the deceased was a history sheeter, therefore, anyone could have killed him. 5. Learned Senior Counsel would also argue that the Investigating Officer ('IO') has recorded the statement of a witness, on 29.07.2022, i.e. two months after the incident, showing as if the person was an eye-witness. It is argued that this alleged eye-witness is the resident of other village. According to him, by coincidence, he visited the forest when the deceased was killed. Based on it, it is argued that it is a planted witness and he cannot be believed. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that, at this stage, the credibility of a witness cannot be assessed by the court. It would fall for scrutiny during trial. According to him, by coincidence, he visited the forest when the deceased was killed. Based on it, it is argued that it is a planted witness and he cannot be believed. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that, at this stage, the credibility of a witness cannot be assessed by the court. It would fall for scrutiny during trial. It is argued that the weapon of offence as well as the clothes worn by the applicant at the time of the incident were recovered from the applicant, which have been sent for Forensic Science Laboratory examination and the report is awaited. It is argued that Harjinder Singh is an eye witness. He has seen the applicant and the co-accused killing the deceased. He is resident of another village. Even if his statement is recorded after two months of the incident, merely on that basis his statement cannot be discarded. 7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. The discussion is being made with a caveat that any observation made in this order should not have any bearing at the trial. 8. If the statement of any eye-witness is recorded after some delay, it may per se not discard the statement. The examination of credibility would still require to be done. 9. The record in the instant case reveals that the parties had enmity. The informant, who is the father of the deceased and the neighbours, whose statements have been recorded by the IO, and which have been referred to by learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, tell to the IO that parties had enmity. 10. It is a case of killing in the forest. The FIR only raises suspicion. There is no Forensic Science Laboratory report, as yet. One of the eye witnesses, who tells that he saw the incident, was resident of another village. The incident allegedly took place in the forest. The alleged eye-witness tells the IO that he coincidently was in the forest, when he saw the incident. But, he did not reveal it to anyone. According to his statement, he knew everyone. His statements were recorded after two months. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. But, he did not reveal it to anyone. According to his statement, he knew everyone. His statements were recorded after two months. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.