Rohit vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

These bail applications are filed seeking for bail in these criminal appeals.

These bail applications are decided by this common order because these criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 31.05.2016, passed

by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2013, “State Vs. Jogendra and othersâ€​.

According to the prosecution case, on 20.02.2013, at about 7.50 p.m., an information was given by Gyan Kishore Chamoli at Police Station

Ranipokari, District Dehradun that an unknown dead body was lying on Bhogpur Sungoan Road, which was half burnt and headless. A burnt skull was

also recovered. The deceased was identified as Surendra Singh, husband of the appellant Smt. Rinku Devi, who along with her nephew Arun Kumar

@ Vicky (appellant in CRLA No. 223 of 2016), conspired to kill her husband. A written agreement was executed by Smt. Rinku Devi, wife of the

deceased, on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- in favour of the appellant Arun Kumar @ Vicky for that purpose. The appellant Jogendra Singh, who is uncle

of the appellant Rohit, the appellant Arun Kumar @ Vicky and the appellant Rohit strangulated the deceased with a rope and put him in a stream,

poured petrol and set him on fire.

After hearing the arguments of the appellants-accused persons, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2016, convicted the appellants

Smt. Rinku and Jogendra Singh under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of

Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation. The appellant Arun Kumar @ Vicky and the appellant Rohit have been convicted under Section 120-B read

with Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 120-B read

with Section 302 of I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-

each in the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with default stipulation.

Heard Ms. Pushpa Joshi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, Mr. Karan Anand, Mr. Ashok Drall and Mr. Lokendra

Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through video conferencing.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, the learned

Senior Advocate appearing for appellant Rohit submitted that there is only one evidence against the appellant Rohit, which is the recovery of the skull

of the deceased and that recovery is doubtful. Mr. Karan Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Smt. Rinku submitted that the

appellant Smt. Rinku although admitted the fact in her statement; recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the said stamp

was written by her, but, the said statement was given by her on the wrong advice. Mr. Ashok Drall, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

Jogendra Singh submitted that the theory of last seen is not proved against this appellant. The F.I.R. Number was not mentioned in the inquest report

and the postmortem report. The skull was recovered from the open place. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar @

Vicky submitted that no independent witness was secured at the time of the said recovery and the said burnt skull was recovered from an open place.

On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable

doubt against all the appellants. The D.N.A. report also supported the case of the prosecution and the Patal, which was used in this crime, was

recovered at the instance of the appellants.

At the stage of considering the bail application, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case has not to

be undertaken. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

While dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for considering why bail is being granted particularly when

the appellants are convicted in a serious offence. Therefore, an order of bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.

In the present matter, the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. At this stage, detailed appreciation of evidence shall

affect the merits of the case. If a strong prima facie ground is disclosed for substantial doubt about the conviction, it may be a ground to grant the bail.

Such a ground does not appear in the present case. Therefore, the bail applications have no merit. The bail applications are rejected.

It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail applications are limited to the decision of these bail applications, as to whether the bail

applications should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the merit of these appeals.