Allowed

Tota Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Sept 2022BA1/1672/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applicants facing murder charges were released on bail. The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution case and the statement of the complainant who filed the FIR, observing that the bail decision required examination of these false allegations at the trial stage.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were ordered to execute a personal bond and furnish two reliable sureties each.

Tota Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No.2053 of 2021

¶3

Satyam Rajput ...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent

¶4

With

¶5

First Bail Application No.1672 of 2021

¶6

Tota Ram ...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent

¶7

Present:-

¶8

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocates for the applicants. Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. for the State.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

Since both the bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order.

¶11

Applicants Satyam Rajput and Tota Ram are in judicial custody in FIR No. 293 of 2021, under Section 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail.

¶12

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

According to the FIR, two days prior to the lodging of the FIR, the applicants and co-accused had attacked, assaulted and beaten up Kamal Singh, the son of the informant. On 17.05.2021, at about 8:30 in the evening, the applicant alongwith co-accused killed deceased Kamal Singh by fire shot. The bullet crossed through the neck.

¶15

It is argued that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The informant has also not supported the prosecution case. The statements of six witnesses, namely, PW1 Shanu, PW2 Samreen, PW3 Madan Lal, the informant, PW4 Harish @ Hari Singh, PW5 Ravi Singh and PW6 Ajay Kumar have been filed.

¶16

The State was granted time to get information as to whether there is any other evidence against the applicants. Learned State counsel would submit that the FSL report confirms that the blood on the jeans and shoes of the co-accused Pawan is from the same human source.

¶17

The Court wanted to know from which same human source? Learned State counsel would submit that it is not clear.

¶18

¶19

Criminal law should not be left to be guided by someone in the manner one likes to utilize the system. FIR has been filed by PW3 Madan Lal. It is categorical and it speaks about two incidents, first, the incident which occurred two days prior to the lodging of the FIR and second, on 17.05.2022. PW3 Madan Lal has not supported the prosecution case. It may be only for two reasons-(i) the FIR is false or (2) the statements are false, may be for varied reasons best known to the witness himself. It requires to be checked.

¶20

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

The bail applications are allowed.

¶22

Let the applicants Satyam Rajput and Tota Ram be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶23

The Court requests the trial court to examine the statement of PW3 Madan Lal at the time of judgment. If it appears that either the FIR is false or the statement is false and it may also serve the interest of justice, the Court may consider to take proceedings against PW3 Madan Lal, in

¶24

¶25

accordance with law. Such proceedings, if taken, should be concluded expeditiously preferably on day-to-day basis.

¶26

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.09.2022

¶27

Jitendra

Tota Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tota Ram 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

Irfan Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Secretariat Complex

Minor through His Natural Guardian (Mohter) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naveen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand