Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13245 (UTT)

AMIT KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/2357/2024 · 2025-07-15

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2357 of 2024 Amit Kumar ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Ms. Reema Rana, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 811 of 2021, in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2022, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, 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 14.11.2021, a dispute arose between the applicant and the deceased with regard to the theft of a rickshaw. Due to which, the applicant and the co-accused did maarpeet with the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased died. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence that the applicant killed the deceased; she would submit that there is noevidence of last seen also. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that PW2 Nanhe Shrivastava and PW3 Nathu Ram both have supported the prosecution case. 6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any 2 observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. PW2 Nanhe Shrivastava has stated that on the date of incident, he had seen that some people were fighting with the rickshaw- wala. But, in cross examination, on being asked, he said that there was a fight between the applicant and the deceased. PW3 Nathu Ram in his examination in chief states that 3-4 people were doing maarpeet with the deceased and in his cross examination, he says that the applicant and the deceased were fighting. 8. Having considered the evidence on record and also considering the fact that it is a case of sudden fight, 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) 15.07.2025 Jitendra