Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 575 (UTT)

Akeel alias Bhuttu v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-08-28

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 1108 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 354, 336, 427 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 24.09.2022, at 10:30 p.m., the applicant alongwith the co-accused entered into the house of the informant armed with sharp edged weapon and attacked various persons in the family, due to which, many persons got injured. They also damaged the property of the informant and threatened them to life. Police was called. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no specific role assigned in the FIR to the applicant, whereas the FIR was lodged on the next day of the occurrence. He would submit that the injured Husnain was admitted in the Roorkee Hospital, but till 12.10.2022, there was no injury on his head. The Medical Board has opined that the injury was simple in nature subject to neurologist opinion. He would submit that neurologist has also not given any definite finding. Learned counsel would also submit that the injured Husnain did not get a CT Scan done in Roorkee or Haridwar, instead he got it done from Meerut. It is cross case. The FIR against the informant and other was lodged ten days after the FIR in the instant case. Hence, it is case fit for bail. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant is author of the injury on the head of injured Husnain. The blow was done by gandasa (a sharp edged heavy metallic weapon). Learned counsel would submit that the applicant was referred from Roorkee Hospital to Doon Hospital, Dehradun for CT Scan, where CT Scan facility was not available. Therefore, the injured Husnain has no other option, but to get his CT Scan done from other place, which he got done from Meerut. It is argued that it is not a case fit for bail. 6. Learned State counsel adopts the arguments as advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the informant. 7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. It is argued that it is not a case fit for bail. 6. Learned State counsel adopts the arguments as advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the informant. 7. It is the 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 proceedings. 8. Multiple medical examination reports of the injured Husnain have been referred to. There are many injured in the case. The reports have been filed. On 25.09.2022, the injured Husnain was examined by the doctor. He was advised for X-ray. In the X-ray report, a fracture was suspected subject to confirmation by the CT Scan. It is also the admitted fact that from 25th September, 2022 to 29th September, 2022, injured Husnain was admitted in the hospital and again from 1st October, 2022 to 12.10.2022, he remained in hospital, but till then, CT Scan was not done. The CT Scan was allegedly done on 14.10.2022 at Meerut which records that “Thin extra-axial hematoma seen in left fronto-parietal with subdural haemorrhage.” Based on the CT Scan report and X-ray report, the Medical Board opined that there was no fracture on the skull, therefore, injury no. 1 was simple. But, with regard to the subdural haemorrhage, the Medical Board also referred the matter for an expert opinion of a Neurosurgeon. Then Neurosurgeon has opined that “on the basis of the Radiologist report of subdural haemorrhage the condition may be deemed to be life threatening possibly.” 9. It is true that in the FIR, it is not stated that the applicant hit on the head of the injured Husnain. But then, it is well settled that the FIR may not contain every details of the incident. Injured Hasnain has categorically stated that it is the applicant, who hit on his head with a gandasa, due to which, he became unconscious. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 11. The bail application is rejected.