Ajeet Kumar Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Ajeet Kumar Pal is in judicial custody in FIR No. 20 of 2018, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station â€" Laxman Jhula, District

Tehri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the records.

In this case, on 04.05.2018, Police found a dead body on Neelkanth Motor Marg, within the Police Station Laxman Jhula. There were holes of

firearms on the head of the dead body. In the postmortem, it was revealed that the woman was shot dead. FIR was lodged subsequently. According

to the prosecution, applicant and co-accused Ankesh Yadav were interrogated and co-accused Ankesh Yadav confessed that he had illicit relations

with the deceased Asha Singh and he, with the help of applicant, killed her.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there is no evidence against the applicant; he has been implicated on the basis of the statement

of the co-accused; which is weak kind of evidence; only a sandal is allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant; applicant is a young boy, who

after his intermediate examination, wanted to pursue his ITI; the test identification parade should be taken into consideration only if it is shown that the

applicant was kept bapardah before identification parade. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case fit for bail.

On behalf of the State, it is argued that the trial is almost over; the matter was listed for final argument on 20.07.2020; the applicant has been seen

in CCTV footages with the co-accused and the deceased. The co-accused had hired a scooty for the purpose from Rishikesh and the owner of the

scooty had deposed about it; the owner of the scooty had also identified the applicant in test identification parade; at the instance of the co-accused,

the weapon of offence, a country-made pistol was recovered, which in forensic examination confirms the prosecution case; at the instance of the

applicant, a sandal of the deceased was recovered and it is a not a case, fit for bail.

It is not a case based on direct evidence, it is based on circumstantial evidence. Undoubtedly, to record a conviction, the chain of circumstances

should be complete to indicate that it is the accused and accused alone who has committed the offence. But, this is a stage of disposal of bail

application, which is pending since 05.09.2018. Much of the evidence should not be discussed at the time of disposal of bail application, particularly,

when the trial is underway, as in this case. But, to the extent of appreciating arguments, the matter has to be looked into.

The applicant is a resident of district Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and co-accused Ankesh Yadav is also a resident of district Ambedkar

Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. They both were seen, according to the prosecution, on CCTV footages on the Neelkanth Motor Marg within Police Station

Laxman Jhula; the co-accused had hired a scooty for the purpose; the person from whom, scooty was hired, as per prosecution, has identified the

applicant and the co-accused. The record of test identification parade is enclosed. In what manner the test identification parade was conducted, what

is its reliability, credibility and trustworthiness, definitely, these question would be raised at the time of trial. The firearm which was recovered from the

co-accused, as per prosecution, was connected to the crime. The forensic report suggests that the empty cartridge recovered from the place of

incident was fired through the country-made pistol, recovered at the instance of the applicant.

Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this is not a case fit for bail. At this

stage, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The instant bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is accordingly rejected.