Junaid vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Heard Mr. Abhishek Varma, Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Applicant, who is in judicial custody, in connection with FIR No.194 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of I.P.C., P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there is no evidence against the applicant even the first informant has not supported the prosecution case in the evidence. Last seen evidence is not proved in the trial. The applicant is in jail since 13.04.2017 and it is a case fit for bail.

On the other hand learned State counsel would argue that on the date of incident, it is the applicant, who called the deceased on his telephone. There is call detail record. The mobile phone of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the applicant and the witnesses are yet to be examined at trial, therefore, it is not a case fit for bail.

In this case FIR was lodged on 11.04.2017 under Section 302 IPC. According to it, on 10.04.2017 the deceased Salauddin was at home, at 08:00 p.m. he received a call and went away. He did not return. Next day, in the morning his dead body was found. In the FIR suspicion was raised on a Babli hijra. During investigation, according to the prosecution the applicant had called deceased for galat kaam. On 10. 04.2017, the applicant was with other four persons. When the deceased declined for galat kaam, he was killed by the applicant by his country made pistol and all the accused crushed the head of the deceased by a heavy stone. The applicant took the mobile phone of the deceased, destroyed it and threw it in the dustbin at his house. At the instance of the applicant, a mobile phone was recovered from the house of his dustbin and also a cartridge case was also recovered from there. When the applicant was arrested at that time a country made pistol was also recovered from the applicant, which was sent for Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the report of FSL the country made pistol had been fired through. It was also reported that the cartridge case found at the instance of applicant has also been fired through the country made pistol recovered from the applicant. There are call details, according to which on 10.04.2017 at 08:51 p.m. the applicant had talked to the deceased. The post mortem report is annexed. The gun shot wound was found on the dead body of the deceased apart from other injuries.

It is true that the first informant herself has not totally corroborated the prosecution evidence. It is also true that a last seen witness has also not supported the prosecution case but many more witnesses are yet to be examined. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. Investigating Officer has connected the links, which they would produce and prove during trial. There is a very strong motive alleged by the prosecution.

Having considered all these facts, in the light of the submissions made, this Court is of the view that there are no ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.

Any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.