Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12771 (UTT)

VIRENDRA KUMAR SHAH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/301/2024 · 2025-03-10

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL 2nd Bail Application No. 301 of 2024 Virendra Kumar Shah ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .….Opposite Party Present:- Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Virendra Kumar Shah is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 557 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, the applicant and the deceased were married in the year 2010. They had quarrel quite often. On 13.12.2022, the applicant hit the deceased on her stomach and back, due to which she sustained injury. She was not treated and on 17.12.2022, she died. The FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the informant has not supported the prosecution case at trial; he has been declared hostile. 2 6. This fact is admitted by the learned State Counsel, however, he would submit that the children of the parties are also witnesses, who are yet to be examined. He would submit that daughter of the parties Priya Kumari in her statement recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has stated that the applicant had a quarrel with her mother and in a fit of rage, the applicant hit on the stomach of her mother; the deceased was taken to hospital but subsequently she died. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after July, 2024, no witness has been examined; the informant has been declared hostile. 8. 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. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 10.03.2025 Avneet/