Allowed

Jitendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Dec 2023BA1/391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the release of the applicant, Jitendra Singh, who was in judicial custody for alleged offenses under Sections 392, 411 IPC and the Arms Act. The court noted discrepancies in witness statements and ordered proceedings against the informant for potentially furnishing false evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties; proceedings against informant for false FIR.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Corruption | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No. 391 of 2023

¶3

Jitendra Singh ...Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, D.A.G. for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

Applicant Jitendra Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No. 44 of 2023, under Sections 392, 411 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

According to the FIR, 21.01.2023 at 10:50 AM, a person entered into the shop of the informant for purchasing a mobile phone. In the process of the dealing, according to the FIR, that person took out a country made pistol and looted the telephone and the charger. But, he was apprehended by the other staff members of the informant, he was the applicant.

¶12

¶13

It is argued that the informant and the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.

¶14

The statement of PW1, the informant and other witnesses, i.e. PW2 Shubham Chaube, PW3 Vishnu Singh Rana and PW4 Prashant Agarwal have also been placed for the perusal of the Court, who according to the FIR apprehended the applicant at the spot. They have not supported the prosecution case. It makes out a case for bail. But, either FIR is false or the statement of the PW1 is false.

¶15

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

¶16

The bail application is allowed.

¶17

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.

¶18

The Court would request the trial court to consider proceedings against PW1 Vans Bhusari for either giving a false FIR or giving false evidence before this Court.

¶19

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.12.2023

¶20

Jitendra

Jitendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh 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

Prahlad Mandal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Parveen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandresh Mamgai Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gurmeet Vs State of Uttarakhand through S.S.P. Haridwar