Allowed

Imran v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC23 Oct 2024BA1/1497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application was heard by the High Court of Uttarakhand. The applicant challenged bail under BNS Sections 105 and 352 regarding an incident involving a tractor deceased. The court considered post-mortem reports and factum discharging respects and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed; the applicant is released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Imran Vs State of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No. 1497 of 2024

¶3

Imran ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the informant.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

Applicant Imran is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 330 of 2024 dated 15.07.2024, under Sections 105 & 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

According to the FIR, on 14.07.2024, at about 09:00 p.m., the applicant was illegally taking minerals in his tractor, which was overloaded. He tried to hit the informant and his companions. Somehow, the informant and his companions could save themselves. At about 09:10 p.m., at a distance, when some other persons wanted to stop the tractor driven by the applicant and the deceased Renu @ Ravi asked as to why the applicant wanted to hit them, the FIR records that the applicant hit the deceased Renu @ Ravi

¶12

¶13

with the tractor, due to which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, again the applicant reversed the tractor and ran it over the chest of the deceased Renu @ Ravi.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a false case; it is a mere case of accident. Learned counsel would submit that a crowd had gathered at the spot; the crowd wanted to kill the applicant and his companion; in fact, they did not even follow the command of the police, due to which the police registered an FIR No. 331 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 117(4), 121(1), 127(2), 127(3), 132, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 326(f) & 352 of BNS at Police Station Kaliyar Shareef, District Haridwar against many named persons. It is argued that in order to save themselves, the instant FIR has been lodged against the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that the post-mortem report does not corroborate the case of the FIR; in case, a tractor is run over a person, there would be crush injuries, but as per the post-mortem report, there are abrasions only. He would also submit that as per the witnesses, it is a case of accident; the applicant had no intent or knowledge that by his act the deceased would die.

¶16

Learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant did not disclose the pendency of cases against

¶17

¶18

him; he simply stated that he is not a previous convict; the post-mortem report supports the prosecution case; the eyewitnesses also support the prosecution case; it is a case of hit and run.

¶19

Learned State Counsel would submit that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. She would submit that the applicant is a history-sheeter.

¶20

It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. The discussion is being made with a caveat that any observation made in this order should not have any bearing at trial.

¶21

Admittedly, after the incident a crowd had gathered the applicant. They wanted to damage the tractor. In fact, the police could not control them. The tractor and trolley of the applicant was set ablaze by the crowd, of which an FIR was lodged.

¶22

These facts are not disputed by the learned State Counsel.

¶23

Learned State Counsel also indicated that, in fact, four ribs of the deceased were crushed. As per the FIR and the statements of the witnesses, the applicant firstly hit the deceased and when the deceased fell down, he reversed

¶24

¶25

the tractor and ran it over the deceased. If a tractor is ran over a persons, it would cause the injuries quite different and not the fracture of 4 ribs only.

¶26

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶27

The bail application is allowed.

¶28

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.

¶29

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 23.10.2024

¶30

Avneet/

Imran v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Abdul Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sachin Vs State of Uttarakhand

Arun Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation CBI

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Monu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ankit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand