High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashish Kumar Upadhyay vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 UK CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307, 324, 326
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 518 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 353 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant Ashish Kumar Upadhayay is in judicial custody in FIR No. 37 of 2022, under Section 307, 324, 326 and 34 IPC, Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, on 22.05.2022, the applicant alongwith co-accused attacked Ajay Rawat, Vijay Rawat and Rohit Bhandari at about 10:30 late in the evening due to which they sustained injuries.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that two of the injured, Vijay Rawat and Rohit Bhandari have been examined in the Court. The injured Rohit Bhandari did not name the applicant in his examination in the court. Injured Vijay Rawat had not named the applicant during investigation, though he has named the applicant at trial, but he has not identified that it is the applicant, who attacked him.

5.

Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant is named in the FIR. He used knife in the incident, due to which, the injured sustained injuries.

6.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

7.

Factually it is correct that injured Vijay Rawat did not name as such the applicant during investigation. He had simply said that one person had attacked him. In the court, he had named the applicant. The fact also remains that injured Rohit Bhandari, who named the applicant during investigation, but he did not name the applicant during trial. It is also admitted that it is a case of sudden fight.

8.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9.

The bail application is allowed.

10.

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.