Vikesh @ Militry vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly

Applicant Vikesh @ Militry is in judicial custody in FIR No.06 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504 IPC and Section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Thana Jhabrera, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 04.01.2024, at 7:15, in the evening, the applicant opened fire at the injured Nitin alias Monu, which hit the injured, but somehow it was not fatal to his life. The applicant also fired at Sher Singh.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the injured, all were having liquor together; somehow, in an altercation, the fire went up; the applicant had no intention of firing or killing anyone; the injured has survived; applicant is in custody for a long. Hence, it is a case fit for bail.

Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant is named in the FIR; there are gunshot injuries on two of the injured, which were dangerous to life. Hence, it is not a case fit for bail.

Learned State Counsel would submit that there were firearm injuries on two persons; the applicant is named in the FIR.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

The FIR also records the genesis of the offence. On the date of incident, when the injured was returning to his home, the applicant waylaid him, started abusing him and threatening him to life. Thereafter, suddenly he opened fire. The injured has stated as to how the incident took place. He has stated that they were having liquor together, and, thereafter, in an altercation, the applicant fired at him. The Doctor has corroborated the prosecution case, which reveals that there was a firearm injury in the 5th rib on the left side of the lungs.

Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.