The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed an application for bail in a case involving offences under Sections 302, 504 IPC, and the Arms Act. The court found insufficient grounds to grant bail and recommended early conclusion of the session trial. The case did not involve charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
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
Dated: Nainital the 11th Day of Dec, 2014 5th Bail Application No. 03 of 2014.
Order on the Bail Application:
CRIMINAL SIDE
Anuj Chauhan .…… Accused/Applicant (in jail)
versus
State of Uttarakhand ...………. Opposite party
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate present for the applicant. Mr. H.O. Bhakuni, A.G.A. present for the State. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate present for the complainant.
U.C.Dhyani, J.
2
3
the applicant was not used in the commission of crime. A perusal of the report dated 26.7.2014 of FSL reveals that the specifications for comparison of the cartridge/bullet were lacking.
(U.C.Dhyani J.) 11.12.2014
SH
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged with offences under Sections 302, 504 IPC and Arms Act.
Whether the provisions of Section 437(7) Cr.P.C. regarding conclusion of the trial are applicable in the present case.
Anuj Chauhan
State of Uttarakhand
U.C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
