Harendra @ Ravindra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri S.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Swapnil Bisht, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

The 1st Bail Application was dismissed for want of prosecution by an order dated 28/10/2010 and the 2nd Bail Application was dismissed as not pressed by an order dated 07/09/2010. This is the 3rd Bail Application.

Initially, a missing report was lodged by the wife of the deceased alleging that the deceased had gone to meet the applicant in connection with RCM business and that the deceased boarded a vehicle and is missing since then. 12 hrs. later another report was lodged by the wife of the deceased contending that her husband has been murdered by the applicant and others in connection with certain land dealings and transaction of money. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police swung into action and apprehended the applicant. It transpires that the applicant made a confession and, on his pointing out, a mutilated de-composed body was discovered alongwith some articles. The body was discovered in the presence of Ran Singh and Rajesh who happened to be the brother and cousin of the deceased and, who also gave their statement and have identified the deceased. The article which belonged to the deceased and which was thrown somewhere else was also recovered at the spot which has also been identified. Upon investigation, it has also come that approximately Rs. 1.5 lacs was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

The deceased''s wife, namely the complainant has also given a statement giving details of the closeness and proximity of her husband with the applicant in question in connection with RCM business. It has been stated that the applicant invested certain amount or had given the applicant some loan amounting to approximately Rs. 40 lacs through various cheques. Certain persons have been examined who have come forward and stated that money was routed through them and was paid to the applicant. It is alleged that on an earlier date, the applicant alongwith others came into two vehicles and had taken the deceased to show him the spot somewhere in Haridwar for the purposes of the purchase of the land.

Shri S.K. Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the confession made by the applicant is not a gospel truth and cannot be relied upon. There was no motive for the applicant to commit the murder. Further, the body which was discovered was found in a de-composed mutilated state which was not recognizable and, in the absence of a DNA test or proper identification, it could not be said that the body was that of the husband of the complainant. In the end, the learned Counsel Senior Counsel submitted that other co-accused have been enlarged on bail and, consequently, in the light of the aforesaid facts, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Having considered the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. at some length and upon a perusal of the record, the Court finds that the applicant is named by the complainant in both the reports. There have been some business transaction between the two, and from the evidence which have come so far, indicates that large sums of money have been received by the applicant. The question of motive, consequently, is writ large. The sequence, eventually, is fortified by the fact that the applicant accompanied the deceased and had taken him somewhere near Haridwar.

In the light of the aforesaid and without commenting any further on the merit of the case, the court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected.