High CourtsSingle Bench

Dharmender Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 August 2024 · Citation: (2024) 08 UK CK 0021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 201, 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 149 Of 2024
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

12 paragraphs · 386 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.77 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, the deceased Jogendra Kaur was found missing from his home. A search was made on 06.06.2023. In that afternoon, some of her body parts were found in a river. There was body parts of some other person (Gurmeet Singh) also.

4.

It is the prosecution case that applicant along with co-accused were seen in the company of Gurmeet Singh, the deceased on 05.06.2023 at 8:00 PM, thereafter, the deceased Gurmeet Singh was not found. His body parts were also recovered from the river.

5.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a no evidence case. There is no motive. The circumstantial evidence is not complete. She would submit that some of the body parts of the deceased were recovered on 06.06.2023 and some parts were shown to have been recovered at the behest of the applicant six days after the incident and there is joint recovery.

6.

Learned State Counsel would submit that at the instance of the applicant, the weapon of offence, a Chopper was also recovered. The deceased Jogendra Kaur was found missing from her home and her body parts were recovered. The deceased Gurmeet Singh was seen in the company of the applicant and co-accused in the previous evening. It is also submitted that some of the body parts of the deceased were also recovered at the instance of the applicant.

7.

The Court wanted to know as to what is the motive that is attributed to the applicant by the prosecution for killing Jogendra Kaur (the deceased)?

8.

Learned State Counsel would submit that, as such, no motive has been attributed in the case.

9.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10.

The bail application is allowed.

11.

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.