Allowed

Laxman Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 May 2014BA2/35/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nainital disposed of a bail application by Laxman Singh, an undertrial convict defaulting on previous bail. The court held that since cross-examination of key witnesses was complete, the applicant was entitled to fresh bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon executing a fresh personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Champawat.

Laxman Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Bail and Remand | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Original Jurisdiction

¶3

Dated: Nainital the 08^th Day of May, 2014 2^nd Bail Application No. 35 of 2014.

¶4

Order on the Bail Application:

¶5

CRIMINAL SIDE

¶6

Laxman Singh ………….Applicant (in jail)

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Uttarakhand …...………. Respondent

¶9

In Case Crime No. 2 of 2012 Under Sections 363, 376 of IPC Police Station – Retha Sahib District – Champawat

¶10

Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate present for the applicant. Mr. V.S Pal, learned AGA present for the State.

¶11

U.C.Dhyani, J.

¶12

Applicant, who is in jail in connection with Case Crime No 2 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC, Police Station – Retha Sahib, District Champawat, 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

Accused applicant Laxman Singh was directed to be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, vide order dated 5.10.2012 of this Court. Thereafter, according to learned counsel for the applicant, the accused was released on bail.

¶16

During the course of trial, the accused-applicant did not appear before the trial Court. The reason assigned by him for his absence was not accepted by the trial Court and therefore, his bail application was rejected. He was sent to judicial custody earlier, when the NBW was issued against him. It was, perhaps after recording of evidence of PW 7 that such an application was rejected.

¶17

The next date was fixed for the cross examination of PW 8 and PW 9.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant has been able to show that the cross examination of PW 8 and 9 is now complete. The applicant is in judicial detention since 28.2.2014.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is now entitled to fresh bail.

¶20

¶21

Let he enlarged on bail on his executing a fresh personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge concerned, who shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant, if he again tries to flee away from justice.

¶22

(U.C.Dhyani J.) 08.05.2014

¶23

S.H

¶24

Laxman Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Singh 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

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar

Sachin Mishra Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Amit Kaushal Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Dalip Singh Vs Kishan Singh Kunwar and Ors.

Lakhvinder Singh Chheena and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Bhanwar Singh and Ors. Vs State and Ors.