Allowed

Rajesh Gangwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Dec 2022BA1/974/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral judgment allowed a bail application for an accused charged with murder. The Court held that call detail records between brothers were insufficient evidence and found the case fit for bail, leading to the applicant's release on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties with the court concerned.

Rajesh Gangwar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No. 974 of 2021

¶3

Rajesh Gangwar ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the informant.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

Counter affidavit, is taken on record. Misc. Application (IA) No.1 of 2022, stands disposed of accordingly.

¶10

Applicant Rajesh Gangwar is in judicial custody in FIR No.625 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120B IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

According to the FIR, on 12.10.2022, five persons knocked at the house of the deceased Prakash Dhami, inquired about him. As soon as the mother of the

¶13

¶14

deceased called Prakash Dhami, he was shot at by those persons. The mother of the deceased Janki Devi, his brother Manoj Dhami and Ashish Yadav did recognize the assailants.

¶15

It is the prosecution case that, in fact, it was a dispute with regard to an election. A few days prior to the incident, the deceased and the applicant had some altercations. It is the applicant, who hired three shooters and got the deceased killed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant.

¶17

The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the informant that, as to what is the evidence available against the applicant? It is told that there is statement of a witness Madhvi, who happened to be a friend of Anu Gangwar (“brother of the applicant”) and call detail records, which revealed that the applicant was in touch with his brother Anu Gangwar on the date of incident.

¶18

Trial is underway, the Court does not intend to scrutinize the statement of Madhvi given before the Investigating Officer. In fact, based on her statement, the

¶19

¶20

applicant cannot be denied bail. She is not a witness. She has not heard anything, as such about the role of the applicant. She has stated that, as to what happened a day before. How Anu Gangwar came to her and left along with his friends. In so far as the call detail record is concerned, if two brothers are speaking to each other, merely because they have spoken at the time when the incident allegedly committed by one brother, how can the other brother be implicated?

¶21

Without making much discussions, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant 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.

¶24

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.12.2022

¶25

Sanjay

Rajesh Gangwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Gangwar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Munni Devi Vs Satyapal

Jeewan Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bijendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjeev Malik Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naeem Ahmad Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others