Uttarakhand HC Allows Bail in Ranjit Chauhan’s Murder Case

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

On 24th August 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma heard the case of Harish Rautela v. State of Uttarakhand via video conferencing.

This case was a second bail application which was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection, registered with Police Station Didihat, District Pithoragarh for the offence punishable under Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) & 302 (Punishment for murder) of the I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 

Facts of the Case

An FIR was registered on 27.10.2019 against the applicant based on a written report lodged by the informant Hayat Singh, father of the deceased Ranjit Chauhan. The report alleged that on 26.10.2019 at about 6:30 – 7 p.m. his son and his colleagues Yogesh, Suraj, Deepak Bora, Divakar and others were going by Jhanpatta Road on a motorcycle. The applicant was standing on Jhanpatta Tiraha, and kicked the deceased and his colleagues. When they protested, the applicant stabbed the deceased in his stomach with a knife, due to which the deceased sustained severe injuries. The deceased died on 30.10.2019 during his treatment in Sushila Tiwari Hospital. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

Applicant’s Submissions

The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated and no motive to commit such a crime was shown by the respondent. He also contended that the respondent had not explained the delay in lodging the FIR. He further alleged that there were no fingerprints on the said knife. 

State’s Submissions

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, they fairly admitted that the applicant had no criminal history. The learned counsel for the victim submitted that the applicant may be released on bail subject to the condition that the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

Court’s Observations

The Court opined that Bail is the rule, and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is to secure the attendance of the accused. Further, there was nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. 

The Court referred to the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, which observed that personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Court’s Decision

The Court held that there was no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, the bail application was allowed.  The applicant was released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: 

  • The applicant shall present personally before the trial court as and when required.  
  • The applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. 
  • The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 

The Court further clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution would be free to move to the court for cancellation of bail.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -