In a bail application under the CrPC, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the applicant’s plea for release on bail. The bench observed that without expressing opinion on merits, the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
Applicant Pankaj Kalra released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Nainital: Dated 15th January, 2014
1st Bail Application No. 33 of 2014
CRIMINAL SIDE
Pankaj Kalra S/o Shyam Sunder Kalra, R/o Old Allahabad Gali Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar
.….Applicant (In jail)
Versus
State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party
___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of F.I.R. No. 192/2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 436, 336, 395, 397, 153-A, 427 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Mr. Shilendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. R.K. Shah, A.G.A. for the State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Applicant Pankaj Klra, who is in jail in connection with F.I.R. No. 192/2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 436, 336, 395, 397, 153-A, 427 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.
It is a case of murder and rioting. In all, ten persons have been named as accused in the said F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that it is a case in which the complainant has claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the incident. Complainant has also alleged himself to be one of the victims, as, according to him, he suffered one bullet fired in the alleged incident. Learned Counsel further contended that it is quite amazing that on the one hand, the complainant states himself to be an eyewitness as well as one of the victims of
2
the incident which allegedly took place on at 10.30 O’clock in the day on 2nd December 2011, yet he could file the F.I.R. of the said incident on 28th April 20102 i.e. after more than six months. Learned Counsel further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the applicant, if released on bail, will never tamper with the evidence and will extend his full cooperation.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Pankaj Kalra be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned.
(V.K. Bist, J.) Vacation Judge
15.1.2014 Prabodh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the applicant who is in jail in connection with FIR for murder and rioting.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pankaj Kalra
V.K. Bist, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
