Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12546 (UTT)

SARBJEET ALIAS GOLU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1966/2024 · 2025-01-06

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 1966 of 2024 Sarbjeet Alias Golu ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Deep Chandra and Mr. Sunder Dhauni, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.346 of 2024, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station- Pathari, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 01.06.2024, the applicant attacked the deceased Ravinder alias Aman on his neck with a sword, due to which he died. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is only one injury on the deceased; there is great contradiction in the statements of the witnesses; on the one hand, witnesses Sumit, Nikhil and Neeraj have told that the applicant and co-accused had hit the deceased with sword, whereas, according to the witness Mohit, it is co-accused Gurmel, who had hit on the neck of the deceased. 2 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that there is contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. He would also submit that according to witness Mohit, co-accused Gurmel had hit the deceased on his neck. 6. According to the FIR, it is the applicant, who had hit the deceased on his neck, but, as stated, according to three eye witnesses, the applicant and the co-accused both had hit the deceased on his neck. Admittedly there was only one injury. Who had hit the deceased on his neck? Witness Mohit tells the Investigating Officer that it is Gurmel, who had hit the deceased on his neck. 7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.01.2025 Ravi Bisht RAVI BISHT Digitally signed by RAVI BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a59f37e6d201 8d38d0b669a5c068799391e6bb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485ED764961E4E 52FD29C6F03C20917020ED093405536, cn=RAVI BISHT Date: 2025.01.06 09:45:13 +05'30'