Dharamveer vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 686 of 2024, under Section 109, 115 (2), 118 (1), 118 (2), 191 (3), 333, 351 (2), 352 and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 01.11.2024 at 8:30 p.m., the applicant alongwith the co-accused had assembled in front of the house of the informant armed with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. They intended to attack Bhura and forcibly entered in his house. The informant tried to pacify the applicant and the co-accused, but FIR records that instead they attacked the informant with lathi, danda and Khukhri. When Chandan Negi @ Sonu came to rescue them, FIR records that he was hit with a sword. In that process, his thumb was amputated.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the allegation of attack with the sword is doubtful because some of the witnesses have stated that it is the applicant who attacked Chandan Negi @ Sonu with sword. But, it is argued that witnesses Gaurvav, Santan Singh and Shivam Tiwari have stated that the injured Chandan Negi @ Sonu was attacked with sword by one Aryan.

Learned State counsel would submit that the medical report supports the prosecution case. The thumb of the injured Chandan Negi @ Sonu was amputated. He would submit that witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

It is true that three witnesses Gaurvav, Santan Singh and Shivam Tiwari in their statements given to the Investigating Officer have assigned the role of hitting with sword to some other person. But, the injured in the instant case is Chandan Negi @ Sonu. He has categorically stated that he was attacked with sword by the applicant. He saved himself by raising his hand, but in that process, his thumb was amputated. This is what has been told by Manoj Sharma, the informant and others.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.