Ajam Malik vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.171 of 2023, under Sections 149, 302, 201, 34 & 3/25 of Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 30.04.2023, in the morning, the applicant came into the house of the deceased and took alongwith him under the pretext of resolving some dispute. After 25 minutes, the brother of the deceased came to know that the deceased has been killed. FIR records that the deceased and his family had enmity with the named accused in the FIR. A suspicion was raised that those named persons, who are co-accused have killed the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. He would submit that the alleged incident took place early in the morning and it is highly improbable that some person could have seen the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the informant writes that it is the applicant who had taken the deceased alongwith him at 05:00 in the morning, under some pretext. At the instance of the applicant, a country-made pistol was recovered. Bullet was detected from the dead body of the deceased. The Forensic Science Laboratory confirms that the bullet which has been detected from the dead body has been fired through the country-made pistol recovered at the behest of the applicant.

It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

FIR records and as per prosecution case, at 05:00 in the morning, the applicant took the deceased with him from his home. Within 25 minutes the deceased was killed. Why had the applicant taken the deceased? How deceased died? These and many more questions would find answer during trial. Moreover, it is further the prosecution case that a country-made pistol was recovered at the instance of the applicant, which confirms that the bullet that was detected from the dead body of the deceased was fired from that country-made pistol.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.