Vipin vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.12.2009 and that was not dismissed on merit.

Heard Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

In brief, the prosecution story is that Ram Singh lodged a report at P.S. Ramnagar on 21.4.2009 against the present applicant Vipin and co-accused Devendra Singh stating therein his sister Smt. Rajabeti got married to co-accused Devendra on 29.6.2001. After the marriage, his sister Smt. Rajabeti was subjected to mental and physical harassment for the demand of dowry and a case was filed in the court by the family of the deceased but due to the interference of relatives, a compromise was taken place between the parties and on 8.2.2008 his sister went to her matrimonial house. It is stated that three sons were born out of the wedlock of his sister. On 20.3.2009, his sister along with her younger son Golu, aged about 1 1/2 years had come to her parental house. On 29.3.2009 she had gone to Amerkila on the call of applicant Vipin. Thereafter on 17.4.2009, applicant gave a telephone call to her and asked her to reach Subhash Chauk at 5 PM. After that the brother and mother of the complainant went to leave Rajabeti and Golu with them. It is alleged that on 20.4.2009 an information was received from P.S. Ramnagar that the dead bodies of Smt. Rajabeti and Golu are found in the forest. It is further alleged that, on account of previous enmity, the applicant Vipin and co-accused Devendra (husband of the deceased Smt. Rajabeti) have committed murder of his sister and nephew and have thrown their bodies in the forest. With these averments, Ram Singh (brother of deceased Smt. Rajabeti) lodged the First Information Report at P.S. Ramnagar on 21.4.2009 at 4:10 PM.

Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR is ante-timed and there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA while opposing the bail of the applicant strongly argued that the present case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is complete so as to connect the present applicant with the said crime. He further argued that during the course of investigation, sufficient evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the applicant. Further, contents of the FIR get full corroboration from the post-mortem report of deceased Smt. Rajabeti and Golu.

After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned Counsel for the parties, after going through the contents of the FIR, post-mortem report and considering the fact that it is a case of double murder where the deceased Smt. Rajabet and his son Golu, who was aged about one and half years, have been murdered by the applicant, I am of the view that no case for bail is made out.

Bail application is rejected accordingly. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.