Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC22 Nov 2019BA1/1288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a conspiracy to murder case, the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the plea, holding that the applicant did not deserve bail given the gravity of the offence and the prima facie evidence of his role in hiring contract killers. The court reserved orders on 19.11.2019 and delivered them on 22.11.2019.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

Reserved on 19.11.2019 Delivered on 22.11.2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

First Bail Application No.1288 of 2019 (U/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

¶4

Vinod Kumar ….. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent

¶7

Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Aggarwal, learned Advocate for the applicant. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Advocate for the complainant.

¶9

Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the bail application.

¶11

Applicant-Vinod Kumar has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime No.281 of 2017 u/s 302 and 120-B of IPC, registered at P.S. Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.

¶12

As per the information given by the informant-Rekha Rani, wife of deceased-Sushil Raghuvanshi, on 13.09.2017 at about 11:15 AM, her husband-Sushil Raghuvanshi, who, being an advocate was going to the Court, then all of a sudden, two unknown bike riders appeared and fired a gunshot on her husband. On receiving the telephonic message, she rushed to hospital and found that her injured husband was giving the statement to the police about the names of suspected persons, namely, Vinod Lala, Amar Singh, younger son of Jagat Singh and three other persons. It is also stated in the FIR that earlier also, her husband informed her that Vinod Lala was (applicant) threatening to kill him through contract killer.

¶13

It is argued by learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and no offence is made out against him; there is no recovery from the possession of the present applicant; and he is languishing in jail since 12.05.2019.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned Sr. Counsel for the complainant, would submit that the deceased- Sushil Raghuvanshi was murdered by contract killer, in which the present accused has performed the main role; the deceased disclosed the name of the present accused before the police just after the incident; statements of two independent witnesses, namely, Pradeep Chamoli @ Bhaddu and Yogember Singh Negi were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, and both of them fully corroborated their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; and the present accused performed the main role to hire the contract killer for the murder of Sushil Raghuvanshi, who was a well-known advocate at Kotdwar.

¶15

In the present matter, the FIR was lodged against the present accused as well as other accused, namely, Amar Singh and younger son of Jagat Singh Negi. Earlier, the deceased had already disclosed his wife-Smt. Rekha Rani about the threat call given to him by the present accused.

¶16

As per the prima facie evidence collected during investigation, the offence was committed by contract killers; they were hired by the present accused; the murder took place when the deceased was going to attend the court; it is a case based upon the

¶17

circumstantial evidence; and the fact whether the present applicant had any role in hiring the contract killers or not, it is a matter of evidence.

¶18

Looking to the gravity of the offence, and also considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage.

¶19

The bail application is, thus, dismissed.

¶20

Needless to observe that the observations, made hereinabove, will not have any affect on the final merits of the trial.

¶21

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)

¶22

22.11.2019

¶23

Balwant

Vinod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

State Vs Soran Singh and Ors.

Platinum Life Sciences Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jitendra Singh and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Arpit Chaudhary Vs State of Uttarakhand