Amit Kumar Alias Kallu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma,J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No. 501 of 2022, registered at police station Manglaur, District Haridwar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 302, 201 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per the case of the prosecution, an FIR was lodged by the informant-Smt. Jagwati that she was residing in Muzaffarnagar with her two sons. She had gone to her village two days ago with her younger son- Pinku. She had gone to her village to talk to her deceased son Subhash’s wife Smt. Sushma (co-accused) and her (Smt. Sushma) two sons, namely, Amit Kumar (present applicant) and Ankit regarding the settlement. On 21.05.2022, there was an altercation with Smt. Sushma and her two sons. She (informant) sent her son-Pinku to the terrace to sleep. At night, her son-Pinku was given liquor and when he got drunk, kerosene was poured over him and he was set on fire. When he did not come down in the morning, she (informant) sent her younger grandson to the roof, who told her that his uncle (deceased) had been burnt in the fire. She went to the roof. Her son (Pinku) died in front of her. The First Information Report was registered against the present applicant, his mother- Smt. Sushma and his real brother- Ankit. The inquest panchnama was drawn. As per the post-mortem report dated 22.05.2022, the dead body of the deceased was burnt to the extent of 80 to 85 %. However, cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to anti-mortem compression of neck due to throttling. Ankit, brother of the present applicant, was exonerated by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. During the investigation, Smt. Sushma was arrested who confessed that she had committed the murder of the deceased. Present applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of his confessional statements, which are not admissible in evidence. The incident of the death of the deceased occurred on the roof of the applicant’s house. The roof of the applicant’s house is also accessible to other houses as the roofs of at least four houses are adjoining. Therefore, commission of the offence by some unknown persons cannot be ruled out at this stage. There was no motive for the applicant to commit the said offence as there is no evidence on record to show that there was any property dispute between the applicant and the deceased. Applicant has no criminal history. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Prosecution has examined three witnesses, therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant is in judicial custody since 22.05.2023.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. She submits that during the investigation, applicant was found to be directly involved in the offence. He also confessed his guilt to the police. However, she has conceded that the roof of the applicant’s house is adjacent to the roof of several other houses and there is no concrete evidence available on record regarding any property dispute between the applicant and the deceased apart from the oral statements of the witnesses.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Amit Kumar alias Kallu be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.