OMKAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has moved the application seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2012 under Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201 and 384 IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Deepak Bisht, Advocate submits that as per prosecution story, a ransom call was made from the mobile No. 9012724924, however, that mobile was allegedly recovered from the possession of co-accused Surrendra; there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. Accused made a so-called confessional statement before the police, which itself is hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has further contended that accused-appellant is in judicial custody with effect from 01.02.2012. Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate further submits that accused-appellant was never identified and none has seen the accused in the company of the deceased. Therefore, there is neither any eyewitness nor any evidence of last seen.
(2.) Considering total of the facts and circumstances of the case, Bail Application is allowed. Let the accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.