Prashant Juyal vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.0043 of 2023, under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 34 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Clement Town, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The deceased Siddharth @ Siddhu was admitted in Aradhal Foundation (“the Center”) for de-addiction. According to the FIR, the applicant along with co-accused killed him and dropped his dead body at the residence of the informant at 7:00 in the morning on 11.04.2023. When the sister of the informant came out, she could identify the applicants’ dropping the dead body of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that eye-witnesses PW2 Shubham and PW5 Mukesh Dobhal have not supported the prosecution case at trial. There is no evidence against the applicant. The applicant is not a person, who had dropped the dead body at the house of the informant. The CCTV footages confirm it. On the one hand, according to the FIR, the sister of the informant had seen the applicant and others dropping the dead body at their residence, whereas, sister of the informant, who has been examined as PW9 has not stated so. It is argued that only PW1, the informant, has tried to show that he had seen the applicant and other co-accused dropping the dead body, but it has not been stated in the FIR. It is also argued that the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved. The applicant had not done anything wrong.

Learned counsel would submit that by the suggestion which was given to the hostile witnesses, it is the prosecution case that Ajay Pandit had assaulted the deceased at the behest of the applicant. He would submit that if, at all, it is taken, it’s a case of exhortation. The applicant was not in the centre.

Learned State counsel would admit that according to the CCTV footages, the applicant was not the person, who had dropped the dead body. He also admits that eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case at trial. He would also submit that cause of death could not be ascertained in the post mortem report.

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

The bail application is allowed.

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.