Ranu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Applicant Ranu, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.26 of 2022, under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC, Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence; that, the alleged iron rod recovered at the instance of the applicant/accused was not sent for forensic examination, therefore, it cannot be the case that it was used in the commission of crime; that, in the CCTV Footage the registration number of the tempo allegedly visible in that footage is not decipherable, therefore, it cannot be the case beyond doubt that it was the tempo of the deceased; that, no motive is assigned to the applicant/accused for commission of crime in the F.I.R.

Per contra, Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that this is a serious and heinous offence; that, the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence where the tempo was seen parked and another CCTV footage of the place where the accused was seen as well as the owner of the CCTV camera Mr. Deepak Chand are yet to be examined.

She would further submit that in her statement PW1 Kalpana, wife of the deceased, has specifically stated that on the night of the incident, a day prior to the recovery of the dead body, she made call to her husband Nem Chand at about 8:00 PM and she was told by him that he is with accused Ranu; that, at 9:00 PM she again rang to her husband deceased Nem Chand, but his phone was switch off then he rang the accused and found that his phone was also switch off; that, on the next date the dead body of her husband was recovered; that, the recovery of the iron rod used in the commission of the offence at the instance of the accused/applicant u/s 27 of The Indian Evidence Act was made and at the same spot shoes and the jacket were also recovered.

She would further submit that there are total 20 prosecution witnesses, out of which only four witnesses have been examined so far and the evidence of important witnesses is yet to be examined.

In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.