Ram Bhul vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is not complete against the applicant to connect him with the alleged crime. He further argued that the only evidence, collected by the I.O., against the applicant is the extra judicial confession of co-accused Chotu @ Gautam before Bijendra and that of Sukha before Rajpal. He further argued that the statement of coaccused was recorded in the police custody and the same is not admissible as per law.

After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned Counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the present applicant deserves bail at this stage.

Let the applicant Ram Bhul be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Haridwar.

The bail application is allowed accordingly.