Dheer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
The bail application is rejected accordingly
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 302, 307, 323
Judgment
Arising out of Case Crime No. /2007 (ST NO. 262/2007), U/S 147, 323, 302, 307 IPC PS Kankhal, District Haridwar. ________________________________________________ HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. May3, 2010 Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. First bail application was disposed of on 17.4.2009 by this court directing the applicant to move fresh application before the trial court. Second bail application was dismissed by this Court on 16.4.2010 for want of prosecuting. Hence, the third bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused applicant. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that FIR was lodged against Dheer Singh and Beer Singh. She further argued that co-accused Veer Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.9.2007 and the present accused applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA for the State argued That present applicant is the main accused. He further argued that injure Manoj (now deceased) was medically examined on
4.3.2007 at 8.35 pm and in the injury report of Manoj, one lacerated wound was shown. Injured Vikas was medically examined on the same day i.e. on 4.3.2007 at 8.15 pm and four lacerated wounds were found on his body. Manoj died on
Operative part
5.3.2007 and on the same day his post mortem was conducted. On 5.3.2007, an application was moved by Prem Singh, father of the deceased Manoj and injured Vikas. In that application, he has stated that Ramrati having Danda in her hands, Atar Singh have Lathi, Ram Kumar having Talwar (Sword), Dheer Singh armed with Iron Rod (Sariya) and Beer Singh armed with Danda have caused the injury to Vikas and when Manoj tried to save Vikas, then Only Dheer Singh i.e. the present applicant caused the injury to Manoj, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries. Specific role has been assigned to the present accused applicant that he was armed with an Iron Rod (Sariya) and due to the injury caused by him, Manoj has died. Averments in the aforesaid application get corroborated by the injury report as well as by the post mortem report. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, perusal of the FIR, injury reports, the post mortem report of deceased Manoj and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly.
3.5.2010 PRABODH (Dharma Veer, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is rejected accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 302, 307, 323.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.