Allowed

Intezar v. State of Uttarakhnad

Uttarakhand HC12 Nov 2021BA1/1551/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of an undertrial accused serving over five months in jail. Despite serious charges including intentional homicide and caste-based offences, the court deemed it a fit case for bail as no chance of tampering exists.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of equal amount.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			BAI No.1551 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms. Meena Bisht, learned B.H. for the State. Accused–Intezar has sought his release on bail in connection with case crime no.508 of 2021, under Sections 307, 504, 34 IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 24.05.2021; as per the FIR, accused Nafees caused gunshot injury; co-accused-Shahrukh has already been enlarged on bail; the role is identical; he is ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail on parity. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail. As per the FIR, the occurrence took place on 08.04.2021 at 10:30 a.m.; accused Nafees took the country-made pistol from the other accused and caused gunshot injury on Ravinder, who received injury on his back. From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that Ranbir was not at the spot; he submitted the information with police station, as per the information received from the injured and the eye-witnesses; during the course of investigation, statements of informant, injured Ravinder, eye-witnesses – Satender, Pappan and Subhash were recorded; as per the statements of the above witnesses, on 08.04.2021, Ravinder and Satender were present at the spot; as per statement of eye-witness Satender recorded duringthe investigationU/s 161Cr.P.C.,

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

BAI No.1551 of 2021
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. counsel
assisted by Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Ms. Meena Bisht, learned B.H. for the
State.
Accused–Intezar has sought his release on
bail in connection with case crime no.508 of 2021,
under Sections 307, 504, 34 IPC and under Section
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, registered at P.S.
Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar.
It is argued that the accused has been
falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since
24.05.2021; as per the FIR, accused Nafees
caused gunshot injury; co-accused-Shahrukh has
already been enlarged on bail; the role is
identical; he is ready to furnish the sureties and
may be granted bail on parity.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State
opposed for bail.
As per the FIR, the occurrence took place
on 08.04.2021 at 10:30 a.m.; accused Nafees
took the country-made pistol from the other
accused and caused gunshot injury on Ravinder,
who received injury on his back.
From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that
Ranbir was not at the spot; he submitted the
information with police station, as per the
information received from the injured and the
eye-witnesses;
during
the
course
of
investigation, statements of informant, injured
Ravinder, eye-witnesses – Satender, Pappan and
Subhash were recorded; as per the statements of
the above witnesses, on 08.04.2021, Ravinder
and Satender were present at the spot; as per
statement of eye-witness Satender recorded
duringthe investigationU/s 161Cr.P.C.,

accused Nafees used the country-made pistol
and caused gunshot injury on Ravinder.
Although his statement was again recorded, in which he stated that Nafees used the country- made pistol. Statement of Pappan was also recorded in which he clearly stated that Nafees used the
country-made pistol and caused gunshot injury
on Ravinder; the same statement was given by the witness Subhash; Pappan is the father of injured Ravinder, who clearly stated that Nafees caused gunshot injury on Ravinder; it is a matter of evidence whether the country-made pistol was actually used by the accused Nafees or not or the present accused Intezar but from the statement of Pappan (father of injured) as well
as statement of eye-witness – Satender, it is, prima facie, clear that although the present accused Intezar was present at the spot but the injured Ravinder received gunshot injury from Nafees; the same contents is given in the FIR also; the accused has already served more than five months in jail; it will take time to conclude the trial; the charge sheet has been submitted;
now, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence; accordingly, without making any comment on the merits, it is a fit case for bail at
this stage. The bail application is thus, allowed and
the applicant is directed to 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. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 12.11.2021

accused Nafees used the country-made pistol

and caused gunshot injury on Ravinder.

Although his statement was again recorded, in
which he stated that Nafees used the country-
made pistol.
Statement of Pappan was also recorded in
which he clearly stated that Nafees used the

country-made pistol and caused gunshot injury

on Ravinder; the same statement was given by
the witness Subhash; Pappan is the father of
injured Ravinder, who clearly stated that Nafees
caused gunshot injury on Ravinder; it is a matter
of evidence whether the country-made pistol
was actually used by the accused Nafees or not
or the present accused Intezar but from the
statement of Pappan (father of injured) as well

as statement of eye-witness – Satender, it is,
prima facie, clear that although the present
accused Intezar was present at the spot but the
injured Ravinder received gunshot injury from
Nafees; the same contents is given in the FIR
also; the accused has already served more than
five months in jail; it will take time to conclude
the trial; the charge sheet has been submitted;

now, there is no chance of tampering with the
evidence; accordingly, without making any
comment on the merits, it is a fit case for bail at

this stage.
The bail application is thus, allowed and

the applicant is directed to 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.
Pending
application,
if
any,
stands
disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
12.11.2021

Intezar v. State of Uttarakhnad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intezar v. State of Uttarakhnad

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

Shri Ramesh Chandra Vs Shri Harish Bhardwaj

Surendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pawan Singh Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Surendra Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home

Suraj Das Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakesh Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand