Amitabh Singh & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

These two Bail Applications have 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. 0022 of 2022, registered with Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital for the offence under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of IPC.

At the request of Mr. Sanpreet Singh Azmani and Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Bail Application No. 435 of 2022 and Bail Application No. 463 of 2022 are being disconnected from the present bail applications.

These two bail applications are arising from one FIR, therefore, these two bail applications are being considered and decided by this common order.

According to the First Information Report, on 17.01.2022, the informant Amrit Pal Singh along with Darshan Singh, Harpal Singh, Lakhvinder Singh, Sahil and Kashmir Singh went to his field, situated at Jayadevpur Farm. At about 1-1:30 p.m., the applicant-accused Shamsher Singh and his son the applicant-accused Amitabh Singh started firing at them with the intention to kill, in which Darshan singh, Lakhvinder Singh, Harpal Singh and Sahil got injured with the bullet. The injured persons were sent to the hospital.

Heard Mr. Sanpreet Singh Azmani, learned counsel along with Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned counsel along with Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel for the informant/victim.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants-accused persons submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and civil case was pending between them. In the civil case, order of status quo was passed, however, the opposite party continuously violated the said order of status quo and trying to grab the said land. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that before the said incident, Indrapal Singh alias Captain, son of the applicant-accused, Shamsher Singh and the brother of the applicant-accused, Amitabh Singh informed the Sub-Inspector from his mobile phone that some unknown persons were trying to grab his land. Therefore, the opposite party was aggressor.

The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated; the present matter is a cross case of the First Information Report No. 24 of 2022, and, according to the medical report, injuries on the injured persons were found simple in nature. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants have not been convicted in any case; they are permanent residents of District Nainital; they are in custody since 18.01.2022 and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant/victim opposed the bail applications and submitted that a country made pistol and a double barrel gun were recovered from the possession of the applicants, and, by the act of the applicants, the said injuries were caused. However, the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant/victim fairly conceded that this is a cross case of the First Information Report No.24 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 188, 354, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC, and the accused persons of the cross case were not arrested during the investigation.

The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Informant/Victim further submitted that the applicant-accused persons were aggressor because the applicant-accused persons were constructing a Tin Shade over the disputed land.

There is cross FIRs, therefore, at this stage, it is difficult to say who was the aggressor of the said incident.

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 applicants behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this stage.

The bail applications are allowed.

Let the applicants, namely, Amitabh Singh and Shamsher Singh be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) The applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.