High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 10 UK CK 0073

Kunwarpal Kashyap vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 12 October 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Bharti Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1519 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 343 words

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

1.

Applicant Kunwarpal Kashyap, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.0072 of 2022, under Section 307 of IPC and u/s 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the alleged incident took place on 19.02.2022; that the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the case; that, there is no independent witness of the alleged incident; that, the applicant/accused is languishing in jail since 22.02.2022; that, there is no chance of absconding, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

4.

Learned counsel would draw attention of the Court to the statements of PW1 Sunil Pratap and PW2 Suraj Singh produced in the Court and would submit that there are contradictions in the statement of these two witnesses; that PW1 Sunil Pratap has merely deposed about the incident of stabbing by the applicant/accused whereas PW2 Suraj Singh has stated that two days prior to the alleged incident there was a scuffle between the applicant/ accused and the injured on the issue of cooking chicken.

5.

Per contra, counsel for the State would vehemently oppose the bail application with the plea that the allegations and evidence against the applicant/accused is strong in nature; that mere reading of the FIR would show that the injured was stabbed in his stomach due to which his intestine had come out and it was just because the medical facility was provided to the injured on time that his life could be saved; that, the witnesses who have been examined before the trial court have supported the case of the prosecution so far.

6.

Having considered the rival submissions of counsel for respective parties, without expressing any opinion about final merits of the case before the Trial Court, in the considered view of this Court, the applicant/accused does not deserve bail at this stage.

7.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.