Allowed

Telluram v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Dec 2020BA2/111/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the second bail application of Telluram, convicted under various IPC sections and The Arms Act. The court was persuaded by cross-versions regarding the incident's location and injuries sustained by the applicant, noting the first bail application had been previously rejected.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount.

Telluram Vs State of Uttarakhand — Bail and Remand | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Second Bail Application No. 111 of 2020

Telluram

...Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ….Respondent

¶7

Present:-

¶8

Mr. Pramod Bailwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

Applicant Telluram, who is in judicial custody, in FIR No. 170 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 and 336 IPC and section 5 r/w 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

¶11

This matter is taken up and heard through Video Conferencing.

¶12

This is the second bail application, first bail application was rejected on 24.07.2020.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that earlier FIR was lodged under Section 452 IPC also because according to the FIR, the applicant entered into the house of the informant and fired at the injured, but it is argued that after investigation Section 452 IPC was deleted, which categorically reveals that the place of incident as given in the FIR was wrong. It is also argued that, in fact, the witnesses in their statements have stated that the incident occurred inside the house, which is falsified by the charge-sheet and it makes out a case for bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State would submit that witnesses have stated that the applicant “approached toward their house and have not stated that they entered their house”.

¶15

¶16

Site plan is not on record. Undoubtedly, at the time of first bail application, the question of cross-case and injuries on the side of the applicant was argued, which was considered then, but it was considered in the light of the existing facts then, wherein it was stated that the applicant entered inside the house of the informant and caused the injuries. It is not true to say that witnesses have stated that the applicant approached towards their house. Alongwith counter-affidavit, Annexure no.1 is the statement of the informant Palturam, who categorically states that the applicant and others entered inside the house. In fact, the injured has also stated in his statement given to the Investigating Officer that the applicant entered in his house. This is Annexure no.3 to the counteraffidavit.

¶17

Be it as it may, after investigation, the place of incident was found not inside the house of the informant as stated in the FIR, but at some other place. There are cross versions; there are injured from the side of the applicant also, who got their medical done at the behest of Police, which is recorded in the first bail order.

¶18

Having considered all the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail now.

¶19

9. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant, namely, Telluram, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶21

This bail order be forwarded to concerned Court as well as the concerned jail through e-mail also.

¶22

Shubham

Telluram v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telluram 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

Tehri Hydro Development Corp Ltd. Vs District Judge

Shukdev Singh Alias Sukkha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Shakuntala Rani (Deceased) Vs Om Prakash Kohli

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand