Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 397 (UTT)

Gulab Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-07

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Delay in filing supplementary affidavit is condoned. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application, IA No.3 of 2024, stands disposed of, accordingly. 2. Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.2 of 2021, Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2022, under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station- Tharali, District- Chamoli. He has sought his release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 13.10.2021, the applicant telephoned the son of the informant that the deceased was being killed by one Mehrbaan Singh alias Subedar, and she should be saved. When the son of the informant reached at the spot, he found that his sister had already been killed by him. At the same time, the son of the informant received three messages from the applicant that, “I have visited the deceased and I am going to die.” In the second message, the applicant wrote that, “The guilty person, Mehrbaan Singh alias Subedar, should not be spared”. And, in the third message, the applicant conveyed that, “I will die now.” The FIR records that the applicant wanted to establish physical relations with the deceased. Therefore, suspicion was raised that it is he, who killed the deceased. The FIR was lodged on 15.10.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the inquest, no suspicion has been raised on the applicant, whereas, the informant was one of the witnesses of the inquest; there has been no recovery. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that there is one eye witness, Suresh Kumar, who has been examined at the trial. He has stated that when he reached at the place of incident, his sister was still alive, and he had seen the applicant running away from that place. It is submitted that the place, where PW2, Suresh Kumar, received the message, is 500 metres away from the place, where the dead body of the deceased was found. 7. 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. 8. 7. 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. 8. The Court had required earlier learned State Counsel to place the transcript of the messages, which PW2, Suresh Kumar, received. It is stated that the messages could not be retrieved. According to the FIR, PW2, Suresh Kumar, received three messages. One, that the deceased was being killed by one Mehrbaan Singh alias Subedar, and second, that the guilty person, Mehrbaan Singh alias Subedar, should not be spared. PW2, Suresh Kumar, has not stated, as such, about the messages in his examination before the court. What is stated is that when he reached at the place of incident, the applicant was running away there. This is not so stated in the FIR. 9. What is the connection of Mehrbaan Singh alias Subedar with the applicant and the deceased? Why PW2, Suresh Kumar, received messages from the applicant that the guilty person, Mehrbaan Singh alias Subedar, should not be spared? What was the guilt of Mehrbaan Singh alias Subedar? These and many more questions would find answer during trial. 10. 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. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. 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.