Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 357 (UTT)

Ravindra Singh @ Happy v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-20

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Applicant Ravindra Singh @ Happy is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 604 of 2018, under Sections 364/302/34/201/392/411/420/467/468/471 IPC, Police Station- Rudrapur, District-Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. A car, bearing registration number DL12TC-0015 was purchased by the informant. Deceased Faheem was its driver. On 02.11.2018, according to the FIR, the deceased informed the informant that he had been hired by someone for Allahabad through one particular telephone number. Subsequently, the deceased was not traceable. It appears that the dead body of the deceased was recovered and the case was registered under Section 302 IPC. Subsequently, on 28.11.2018, according to the police, the car of the informant was recovered from the possession of the applicant within police station Khatima when he opened fire at police. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no document to suggest that the telephone number, from which the deceased was called, belongs to the applicant; it is not in the applicant’s name; merely on the basis of the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it cannot be assumed that the applicant has committed the offence; even otherwise, there is no material to suggest that the deceased received any telephone call from a particular number, which is mentioned in the FIR; the entire case is false; on 28.11.2018, according to the prosecution, the applicant was arrested with the car of the informant, when he opened fire at the police, but he would submit that in the trial, the court of Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, has acquitted the applicant; the applicant is in custody for a long. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the deceased was called by the applicant from a particular number, which he was using; the car was recovered at the instance of the applicant. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 7. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 7. It is admitted that there is no material, at this stage, to suggest as to which cell phone number was being used by the deceased and as to whether the deceased received any telephone call from the number recorded in the FIR. It is admitted that when, according to the prosecution, the car was recovered from the applicant, he opened fire at the police, but in that case, under Section 307 IPC, the applicant has already been acquitted of the trial. 8. 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. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.