Allowed

Rajeev Kumar Gangwar v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC21 May 2014BA1/204/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand entertained a bail application filed by Rajeev Kumar Gangwar, an accused in a murder case (Sections 302 and 201 IPC). Despite complicity established via a confessional statement, the court considered circumstantial evidence insufficient and granted bail requiring a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of Rajeev Kumar Gangwar on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

Rajeev Kumar Gangwar Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Original Jurisdiction

¶3

Dated: Nainital the 21^st Day of May, 2014 1^st Bail Application No. 204 of 2014.

¶4

Order on the Bail Application:

¶5

CRIMINAL SIDE

¶6

Rajeev Kumar Gangwar .…… Accused/Applicant (in jail)

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Uttarakhand ...………. Opposite party

¶9

FIR No. 150 of 2013 Under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC Police Station – Pant Nagar District – Udham Singh Nagar

¶10

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate present for the applicant. Mr. P. S. Soun, learned Deputy Advocate General, present for the State/respondent.

¶11

U.C.Dhyani, J.

¶12

Applicant, who is in jail in connection with First Information Report dated 150 of 2013, relating to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, Police Station – Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.

¶13

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application.

¶15

The complicity of the present applicant came to fore on the basis of his confessional statement, who confessed to the police that he killed the victim and thereafter her dead body was dumped in a gutter with the help of co-accused, one of whom (Adesh Kumar Gangwar) was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2014. Learned Deputy Advocate General also read the statement of one of the witness viz . Gopal Saran, but that too does not help the prosecution. It is a case of circumstantial evidence.

¶16

Considering the evidentiary value of the material collected by the Investigating Officer, this Court thinks that the present applicant too should be granted bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant Rajeev Kumar Gangwar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

¶18

(U.C.Dhyani J.) 21.05.2014

¶19

Kaushal

¶20

Rajeev Kumar Gangwar v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Gangwar v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waseem Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vinod Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sadhvi Shardhanath @ Sarla Sharma and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

M/s Hello India Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Atikurrahman and Another Vs Smt. Farha Saifi

Smt. Vidhyawati and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others