Vikaram Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Kailash Chandra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State.

In brief, the prosecution story is that marriage of injured Smt. Nirmala Devi was solemnized with the applicant-accused 25-30 years back and later on accused solemnized second marriage 8-9 years back. Injured Nirmala Devi opposed the second marriage of applicant-accused and on that account the applicant wants to thrown her from house and maltreated her on one way and other. In the marriage of her elder daughter, applicant-accused contributed nothing. On 25.5.2010, Jagat Singh, brother of injured Smt. Nirmala Devi, got a telephone call from her niece (daughter of injured) that the applicant-accused has thrown all the belongings of Smt. Nirmala Devi from the house and he also wants to turn out Smt. Nirmala Devi from her house. When Smt. Nirmala Devi resisted this act of the applicant-accused, he by means of Chapar, a weapon used to cut meat, inflicted a number of blows on her due to which she received serious injuries. Due to fear of the applicant-accused, son and daughter of Smt. Nirmala Devi are not taking her to hospital. Even the other people of village are not helping her due to his fear. On this information, complainant came from Haridwar on 26.5.2010 and saw the condition of his sister, who was drenched with blood. He admitted her in Hospital Deghat from where she was referred to Bhikiyasen Hospital by Ambulance 108. Injured was medically examined at C.H.C. Bhikiyasen on 26.5.2010 at about 9 PM and a number of injuries were found on her person which were caused by Chapar.

Learned Counsel for the applicant-accused argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State vehemently argued that as many as eight injuries were found on the person of Smt. Nirmala Devi which are on vital part and dangerous to life. Thus, the contents of the FIR get full corroboration from the medical evidence.

A perusal of the First Information Report and the medical report of the injured and the facts and circumstances of the case prima facie indicates that the injuries were caused to Smt. Nirmala Devi by the applicant-accused with intention to kill her and even her children and the villagers did not find the courage to take her to hospital due to fear of the applicant-accused and when the brother of the injured came to her house then she was taken to Hospital Deghat from where she was referred to Bhikiyasen Hospital by Ambulance 108. Further, eight injuries have been received by the injured Smt. Nirmala Devi, out of which six are on the head i.e. vital part.

Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail.

The bail application is rejected accordingly.