Sanjesh Alias Kala vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani, J

The present Bail Application has been moved by the applicant - Sanjesh alias Kala, aged about 44 year s (S/o Amar Singh, R/o Rithora Grant, Police Station SI DCUL, District Dehradun) under Sect ion 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the FI R/ Case Crime No. 0384 of 2023, registered at Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar.

Heard Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State.

It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution story, on 03.10.2023 at about 5.11 p.m., an FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased that on the same day i.e. 03.10.2023 at about 10 a.m., the husband (deceased) of the complainant had a dispute with one Sanjesh alias Kala (the present applicant) merely for Rs. 65,000/ - , with regard to some procurement of bricks and some misunderstanding arose between both of them, which resulted in a dispute, and, ultimately, the complainant’s husband (deceased) was hit by the assailants by some heavy blunt object on his head, which resulted in his death. She, thereafter, lodged an FIR as FIR/ Case Crime No. 0384 of 2023, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at police station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar.

It is cont ended on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant that the grounds of the FI R are baseless and unfounded, as he did not commit any crime so alleged and charged with; and that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further stated that the animosity, which is shown by the prosecution holds no water and the whole story is concocted. There are no eyewitnesses in the present matter and whole case is solely based on circumstantial evidence. The story of the prosecution, that there are eye wit nesses w ho saw the incident, does not support the prosecution story.

In this regard, the star witness of the prosecution, namely, Mulki, son of Shri Rambhor PW2 does not support the prosecution evidence.

It is also contended on behalf of the applicant / accused that a hard blunt object is said to be the weapon of the assault, i.e. “fanti” (a plank of wood) and as per the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, two such items “fanti/ wooden planks” are said to have been recovered. The question here arises is out of two “fantis” so recovered, which can be attributed as murder weapon. The prosecution has no satisfactory explanation in this regard. Once such “fanti/ wooden plank” is said to have been recovered from the shop of motorcycle mechanic, who is the prosecution witness no. 2, namely, Mulki and as such the witness does not support the prosecution story and such recovery cannot be relied upon. The other witnesses on whom the prosecution is laying stress are merely hear say witnesses, and the evidence of such witnesses cannot be corroborated and relied upon.

The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.10.2023; the applicant has no previous criminal history; and it is requested by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has strongly opposed the bail application with the contention that it is a serious offence and the applicant – accused brutally hit the deceased with a “fanti” (plank of wood) deliberately aiming at his head knowing so that such brutal attack may cause the death of the deceased.

As per contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that two “fantis” (planks of wood) that are said to be recovered and benefit of doubt, so claimed, by the applicant, is baseless as both the “fantis” (planks of wood) contained blood, which have been sent for forensic examination, and it is contended that if the accused is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses, thereby causing miscarriage of justice.

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the records, at this juncture, without going into the merits, I find it a fit case for bail. Rest will be decided at the trial stage. At present, this Court is of the opinion, that the prima facie evidence firstly does not support the prosecution story and secondly, there is anomaly of recovery of two different so called murder weapons “fanti” (plank of wood). Either of one could have been used, or if both are said to have been used, there may be another person as an assailant, which is not the prosecution case. Hence, grounds of bail are sufficient

Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Sanjesh alias Kala be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him , the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.