Paras Kapoor v. State of Uttarakhand

bail application through his learned counsels, Sri Mukesh Kumar Kaparwan and Sri V.K. Kaparwan. The learned AGA, Shri Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, opposes the application.

2. The applicant has filed the present bail application in connection with Case Crime No./FIR No. 46 of 2024, registered under Sections 307, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun.

3. It has been submitted in the bail application that the applicant has been in custody since 30.04.2024 in connection with the present case. The applicant has narrated that on 19.02.2024 at about 10:30 PM while travelling in his car along with his wife and minor daughter, he was allegedly assaulted by the informant and his associates, who were in a drunken state. It has further been contended that the informant and his associates outraged the modesty of the applicant’s minor daughter, resulting in injuries to the applicant, his wife, and the minor daughter. A medical examination report of their injuries was prepared at the District Hospital, Dehradun. 2

4. The applicant further submits that an FIR bearing Case Crime No./FIR No. 45 of 2024 was lodged on 20.02.2024 at 8:34 PM at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, against the informant, Mukesh Kumar, and his associates under Sections 147, 342, 352, 354, 427, 504, and 506 IPC. Subsequently, on 20.02.2024 at about 8:40 PM, the informant, Mukesh Kumar, filed a counter FIR against the applicant, alleging that the applicant used caste- related abusive language and assaulted his son, Saurabh Kumar, with a knife, resulting in serious injuries. On the basis of the medical certificate issued by Max Health Care, Dehradun, Section 307 IPC was later added to the case, while Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act was removed.

5. The applicant contends that The FIR filed against him is a retaliatory measure in response to his earlier FIR against the informantto his earlier FIR against the informant. It is argued that the injuries sustained by the informant’s son, Saurabh Kumar, were not inflicted by the applicant but were a result of the scuffle initiated by the informant and his associates. The applicant also relies on CCTV footage, which he claims supports his version of events. It is further submitted that no weapon of assault was recovered from the possession of the applicant and that the knife allegedly used in the offence was recovered from the informant’s car.

6. The applicant maintains that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is urged that he has no prior criminal history and that the essential ingredients of Sections 307, 504, and 506 IPC are not made out against him. He seeks bail on the ground that continued incarceration would cause irreparable harm and hardship, especially since the trial may take a considerable amount of time. 3

7. The learned Government Counsel, opposing the bail application, submits that the bail rejection order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, is well-reasoned and justified. It is contended that the applicant has been actively involved in the alleged offence, and the gravity of the offence does not warrant his release on bail.

8. It is further submitted that during the investigation, based on the evidence collected, Section 307 IPC was added in place of Section 324 IPC, while Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was removed. The prosecution asserts that this case involves cross- FIRs, and therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity as raised in his affidavit.

9. The prosecution also relies on statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from the injured Saurabh Kumar and witnesses, including Km. Khushboo, Aman Kumar, Updesh Kumar, and the complainant Mukesh Kumar, all of whom have supported the prosecution’s case. Additionally, CCTV footage allegedly shows the applicant attempting to attack the informant with a knife, which was later recovered from the complainant’s car by the police field unit team.

10. It is argued that the medical reports of the injured, statements of doctors, and recovery of material evidence establish the applicant’s involvement in the crime beyond doubt. The prosecution refutes the allegations of false implication, asserting that the investigation has been conducted fairly and there is no malice on the part of the police.

11. The State further contends that the applicant has committed a serious offence, and there is a strong likelihood that if he is released on bail, he may tamper with evidence and influence the witnesses, thereby obstructing the course of justice. 4

12. In view of the above, the learned Government Counsel strongly opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Government Counsel for the State, and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is mindful that the matter is still under trial, and any detailed observations at this stage may have a bearing on the final adjudication of the case.

14. It is noted that cross-FIRs have been lodged by both parties, raising competing allegations of assault. The applicant’s FIR was lodged prior to the informant’s FIR, which, prima facie, suggests the possibility of a retaliatory action by the informant. The prosecution has relied on CCTV footage, which reportedly shows the applicant attacking the informant; however, such evidence must be examined critically during the trial and cannot be the sole ground for denying bail at this stage.

15. Further, it is significant that the knife allegedly used in the offence was recovered from the complainant’s vehicle, not from the applicant's possession. This fact, coupled with the absence of any independent witness other than the complainant’s associates, raises certain doubts regarding the exact manner in which the incident transpired.

16. The applicant has been in custody since 30.04.2024, and the trial is yet to commence. He has no past criminal record, and there is no immediate apprehension of him absconding or 5 tampering with evidence if suitable conditions are imposed. In light of these factors and considering that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant while ensuring safeguards to prevent any interference in the trial. ORDER

17. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Paras Kapoor (male), aged about 36, S/O Shri Rajendra Pal Kapoor, R/O Do Bacchi Road, Dhoran, Sahatradhara, PS Rajpur, District Dehradun, be released on bail in connection with Case Crime No./FIR No. 46 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504, and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, subject to the following conditions: On his furnishing a personal bond with two 1. sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court,

2. jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission. The applicant shall not leave the territorial

3. or influence any witnesses in any manner. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence shall cooperate

4. The applicant proceedings and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed in the matter unless exempted for valid reasons and The prosecution shall be at liberty to move an 5. application for cancellation of bail if it is found that the applicant has violated any of the above conditions. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.02.2025 NR/