Him anshu Rawat alias Makau v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

years ( S/ o Shri Rat an Singh Rawat , R/ o Basant Vihar, Chit rakut Colony, Chorpani, Police St at ion Ram nagar, Dist rict Nainit al) . The applicant is in j udicial cust ody in connect ion wit h FI R No. 531 of 2023, regist ered at Police St at ion Ram nagar, Dist rict Nainit al, under Sect ions 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 of t he I ndian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sect ion 3/ 25 of t he Arm s Act , 1959.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand and perused t he record.

3. The applicant languishing j ail since

20.12.2023. 2

4. I t has been alleged t hat on 18.12.2023 at approxim at ely 5: 30 PM, t he applicant , along wit h co- accused persons, fired at t he com plainant ’s son, Sahil Singh, near New Bast i, causing him inj uries. Anot her individual, Harpreet Singh, also sust ained firearm inj uries. The FI R was lodged on 19.12.2023.

5. During t he invest igat ion, st at em ent s of various wit nesses, including t he inj ured persons, were recorded under Sect ion 161 Cr.P.C., and t he applicant was arrest ed on 20.12.2023. A count ry- m ade pist ol and t wo cart ridges were allegedly recovered from t he applicant ’s possession, and addit ional charges under t he Arm s Act were added.

6. Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant has been falsely im plicat ed in t he present case and t hat t he allegat ions m ade in t he FI R are not support ed by m edical or independent evidence. I t has been cont ended t hat t he vict im s did not suffer grievous inj uries, and t he m edical exam inat ion report s do not est ablish any life- t hreat ening wounds. The inj uries sust ained by t he vict im s are burn inj uries and not deep penet rat ing wounds, which suggest s t hat t he firing narrat ive is exaggerat ed.

7. Furt herm ore, Harpreet Singh, adm it t ed t hat he heard a gunshot but could not ident ify who fired it . The learned counsel furt her point s out t hat t here are no independent wit nesses t o t he alleged recovery of t he firearm , and t he police have plant ed t he weapon t o falsely im plicat e t he applicant .

8. Addit ionally, one of t he co- accused persons, Lucky @ Bhanu Prat ap, has already been grant ed bail, and 3 t he case of t he present applicant st ands on sim ilar foot ing. The applicant has no previous crim inal hist ory; he is t he sole earning m em ber of his fam ily; and he undert akes t o abide by any condit ions im posed by t he Court .

9. Learned counsel for t he St at e has opposed t he bail applicat ion, arguing t hat t he allegat ions against t he applicant are serious in nat ure. I t has been subm it t ed t hat m ult iple eyewit nesses have ident ified t he applicant as t he person, who fired t he gun, causing inj uries t o Sahil Singh and Harpreet Singh.

10. Learned St at e Counsel furt her subm it s t hat t he weapon used t he crim e was recovered t he applicant ’s possession. I t has furt her been argued t hat , considering t he gravit y of t he offense and t he use of a firearm , t he applicant does not deserve any leniency. The St at e has also cont ended t hat if t he applicant is released on bail, he m ay t am per wit h evidence and int im idat e wit nesses.

11. Learned counsel for t he applicant has refut ed t he st at e’s claim s, assert ing t hat t here is no direct evidence of him firing a gun and t hat t he recovery of t he firearm is highly quest ionable. The applicant also disput es t he credibilit y of t he wit nesses, arguing t hat t heir st at em ent s lack specificit y regarding his role t he incident .

12. Upon hearing t he subm issions of bot h part ies and aft er careful perusal of t he records, cert ain crucial aspect s em erge. The m edical evidence does not conclusively est ablish t he st at e’s case, as t he inj uries sust ained by t he vict im s were not grievous or life- t hreat ening. 4

13. The st at em ent s of t he vict im s and wit nesses cont ain m at erial cont radict ions, wit h one vict im adm it t ing t hat he had no disput e wit h t he applicant and anot her st at ing t hat he did not see who fired t he gun. There are no independent wit nesses t o t he alleged recovery of t he firearm , which weakens t he st at e’s case.

14. A co- accused in t he m at t er has already been grant ed bail, and t he principle of parit y applies t o t he present applicant as well. The applicant has no prior crim inal hist ory, and t he st at e has failed t o est ablish any concret e apprehension t hat he would t am per wit h evidence or int im idat e wit nesses if released on bail.

15. Considering t hese circum st ances, t he Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant has m ade out a case for bail. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is allowed.

16. Let t he applicant be released on bail in Case Crim e No. 531 of 2023, upon furnishing a personal bond wit h t wo suret ies of t he like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of t he t rial court , subj ect t o t he condit ions t hat he shall not t am per wit h t he evidence or t ry t o influence any wit ness in any m anner; he shall not cont act t he vict im s or t heir fam ilies direct ly or indirect ly; he shall cooperat e in t he t rial proceedings wit hout seeking unnecessary adj ournm ent s; he shall not leave t he j urisdict ion of t he t rial court wit hout prior perm ission; and he shall appear before t he t rial court on all dat es fixed, failing which t he bail shall be liable t o be cancelled. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 26.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa0 8b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0 A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA

years ( S/ o Shri Rat an Singh Rawat , R/ o Basant Vihar, Chit rakut Colony, Chorpani, Police St at ion Ram nagar, Dist rict Nainit al) . The applicant is in j udicial cust ody in connect ion wit h FI R No. 531 of 2023, regist ered at Police St at ion Ram nagar, Dist rict Nainit al, under Sect ions 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 of t he I ndian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sect ion 3/ 25 of t he Arm s Act , 1959.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand and perused t he record.

3. The applicant languishing j ail since

20.12.2023. 2

4. I t has been alleged t hat on 18.12.2023 at approxim at ely 5: 30 PM, t he applicant , along wit h co- accused persons, fired at t he com plainant ’s son, Sahil Singh, near New Bast i, causing him inj uries. Anot her individual, Harpreet Singh, also sust ained firearm inj uries. The FI R was lodged on 19.12.2023.

5. During t he invest igat ion, st at em ent s of various wit nesses, including t he inj ured persons, were recorded under Sect ion 161 Cr.P.C., and t he applicant was arrest ed on 20.12.2023. A count ry- m ade pist ol and t wo cart ridges were allegedly recovered from t he applicant ’s possession, and addit ional charges under t he Arm s Act were added.

6. Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant has been falsely im plicat ed in t he present case and t hat t he allegat ions m ade in t he FI R are not support ed by m edical or independent evidence. I t has been cont ended t hat t he vict im s did not suffer grievous inj uries, and t he m edical exam inat ion report s do not est ablish any life- t hreat ening wounds. The inj uries sust ained by t he vict im s are burn inj uries and not deep penet rat ing wounds, which suggest s t hat t he firing narrat ive is exaggerat ed.

7. Furt herm ore, Harpreet Singh, adm it t ed t hat he heard a gunshot but could not ident ify who fired it . The learned counsel furt her point s out t hat t here are no independent wit nesses t o t he alleged recovery of t he firearm , and t he police have plant ed t he weapon t o falsely im plicat e t he applicant .

8. Addit ionally, one of t he co- accused persons, Lucky @ Bhanu Prat ap, has already been grant ed bail, and 3 t he case of t he present applicant st ands on sim ilar foot ing. The applicant has no previous crim inal hist ory; he is t he sole earning m em ber of his fam ily; and he undert akes t o abide by any condit ions im posed by t he Court .

9. Learned counsel for t he St at e has opposed t he bail applicat ion, arguing t hat t he allegat ions against t he applicant are serious in nat ure. I t has been subm it t ed t hat m ult iple eyewit nesses have ident ified t he applicant as t he person, who fired t he gun, causing inj uries t o Sahil Singh and Harpreet Singh.

10. Learned St at e Counsel furt her subm it s t hat t he weapon used t he crim e was recovered t he applicant ’s possession. I t has furt her been argued t hat , considering t he gravit y of t he offense and t he use of a firearm , t he applicant does not deserve any leniency. The St at e has also cont ended t hat if t he applicant is released on bail, he m ay t am per wit h evidence and int im idat e wit nesses.

11. Learned counsel for t he applicant has refut ed t he st at e’s claim s, assert ing t hat t here is no direct evidence of him firing a gun and t hat t he recovery of t he firearm is highly quest ionable. The applicant also disput es t he credibilit y of t he wit nesses, arguing t hat t heir st at em ent s lack specificit y regarding his role t he incident .

12. Upon hearing t he subm issions of bot h part ies and aft er careful perusal of t he records, cert ain crucial aspect s em erge. The m edical evidence does not conclusively est ablish t he st at e’s case, as t he inj uries sust ained by t he vict im s were not grievous or life- t hreat ening. 4

13. The st at em ent s of t he vict im s and wit nesses cont ain m at erial cont radict ions, wit h one vict im adm it t ing t hat he had no disput e wit h t he applicant and anot her st at ing t hat he did not see who fired t he gun. There are no independent wit nesses t o t he alleged recovery of t he firearm , which weakens t he st at e’s case.

14. A co- accused in t he m at t er has already been grant ed bail, and t he principle of parit y applies t o t he present applicant as well. The applicant has no prior crim inal hist ory, and t he st at e has failed t o est ablish any concret e apprehension t hat he would t am per wit h evidence or int im idat e wit nesses if released on bail.

15. Considering t hese circum st ances, t he Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant has m ade out a case for bail. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is allowed.

16. Let t he applicant be released on bail in Case Crim e No. 531 of 2023, upon furnishing a personal bond wit h t wo suret ies of t he like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of t he t rial court , subj ect t o t he condit ions t hat he shall not t am per wit h t he evidence or t ry t o influence any wit ness in any m anner; he shall not cont act t he vict im s or t heir fam ilies direct ly or indirect ly; he shall cooperat e in t he t rial proceedings wit hout seeking unnecessary adj ournm ent s; he shall not leave t he j urisdict ion of t he t rial court wit hout prior perm ission; and he shall appear before t he t rial court on all dat es fixed, failing which t he bail shall be liable t o be cancelled. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 26.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa0 8b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0 A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA