AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Kumar Verma, J
This is the Third Bail Application (IA No. 12091/2023). The First Bail Application (IA No. 12085/2021) of the appellant was rejected on 27.07.2021. The Second Bail Application (IA No. 12087/2022) of the appellant was considered as a Short Term Bail Application.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He has been further sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 05 lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, with default stipulations. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Heard Ms. Neelima Mishra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
The case of the prosecution is that the dead-body of the deceased, the wife of the appellant, was recovered from the freezer of the appellant on 12.12.2010. It was also found that on 17.10.2010, the appellant had a fight with his wife (deceased). The appellant had an illicit relationship with a lady (PW-25). After commission of the murder, appellant purchased a deep freezer from the shop of the witness Shakil (PW-9) on 19.10.2010 and a wooden cutter from the shop of Pratik Bansal (PW-13) on 03.11.2010 to dispose of the body of the deceased. At the instance of the appellant, the severed body of the deceased was recovered from the deep freezer kept in the house of the appellant and her feet were recovered near Malsi Deer Park. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was ante-mortem injuries.
The prosecution has examined as many as 42 witnesses. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. All these circumstances lead towards the conviction of the appellant. Appellant had opportunity to raise all his contentions on the previous occasion and he had actually raised the said contentions. It is not open to the appellant to make successive bail applications even on the grounds already rejected by this Court. Therefore, no good ground has been found to release the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, the present Third Bail Application (IA No. 12091/2023) is rejected.