Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 325 (UTT)

Angrej Singh alias Rinku v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-10

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. This is the Third Bail Application. 2. The First Bail Application (No. 1213 of 2019) was rejected on 27.05.2020. The Second Bail Application (No. 212 of 2022) was dismissed on 27.09.2022 as withdrawn granting liberty to the applicant to file a fresh bail application in accordance with law. 3. The present applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the Case Crime No. 153 of 2018, registered at police station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2018 at 23:45 hrs, an FIR was lodged by Mohd. Khalid, the informant, against five named and some unknown persons, alleging therein that the informant, his brother Sameer and the co-accused Arif were doing the business of property in partnership in which the co-accused Arif grabbed Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh) and on being demanded the said money, the co-accused Arif and his companions threatened for dire consequences. On 23.04.2018 at about 6:00 p.m., the co-accused asked the informant and his brother Sameer to leave Transport Nagar otherwise they will die since the co-accused had already given a contract to other persons to kill them and their family. On 03.05.2018, some unknown persons, muffled their faces, opened fire upon the informant and his brother, when they were waiting for someone at Kichha By-pass. The injured Sameer Ahmed died when he was taken to the hospital. 5. Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for State and Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for informant/victim. 6. Opposing the Bail Application, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, appearing for State and Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, submitted that during the investigation, witness Aslam (PW2) identified the present applicant after seeing the CCTV footage. Applicant confessed his guilt before the independent witness Harjeet Singh and the firearm weapon, used in the offence, recovered from the possession of the present applicant on 22.05.2018, when he was arrested. 7. On the other hand Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate, contended that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. According to the prosecution, Aslam son of Afjal Hussain had identified the applicant by his name after seeing the CCTV footage. 7. On the other hand Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate, contended that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. According to the prosecution, Aslam son of Afjal Hussain had identified the applicant by his name after seeing the CCTV footage. But, the prosecution has examined Aslam son of Fariyad (PW2) who has deposed that he did not know the applicant before the incident. Prosecution has not filed any such evidence that Aslam’s father’s name is Fariyad and also Afjal Hussain. The alleged recovery is false. No independent witness was secured by the arresting party at the time of the alleged recovery. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory is inconclusive. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Bareilly, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and, he is in custody since 22.05.2018. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found 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. 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant-Angrej Singh alias Rinku 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 on the following conditions: (i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall 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. 11. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.