Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7242 (UTT)

UMED RAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/995/2024 · 2025-06-04

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 995 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vikramaditya Shah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. The applicant – Umed Ram, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 10 of 2023, under Sections 201, 302, 364, 394, 411 of IPC, registered at P.S.- Jauljivi, District Pithoragarh, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is having 52% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and, as such, he is not able to drive a vehicle and further he is also not having a driving license. Learned counsel further submits that FIR is lodged after four days of the alleged incident and no possible reasons have been given in the FIR for lodging the FIR after four days. It is further submitted that the body was recovered inside forest, which is 14-15 meters away from the main road. Since, the applicant is a disabled person, he is hardly able to walk and could not have done this act single- handedly. Furthermore, there are no independent witnesses to the incident. Furthermore, the applicant is in jail since 17.05.2023 and only two witnesses have been examined. It is further submitted by learned counsel that all the witnesses are Police personnel and therefore, there are no chances of tampering with the evidence. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that white Alto car of the applicant is seen going and coming from Dharchula to Ghorpatta, where, the body of the deceased was recovered, but, only the applicant is seen in the vehicle and no other person is seen. 7. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, 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 of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 04.06.2025 Ujjwal