Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/1109/2008 of LAXMAN SINGH ALIAS LACHU Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 31 December 2008
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 31st December, 2008 2nd Bail Application No. 1109 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Laxman Singh alias Lachu S/o Sri Govind Singh …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……..
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 31[st] December, 2008 2[nd] Bail Application No. 1109 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused.
Laxman Singh alias Lachu S/o Sri Govind Singh
…….. Applicant …….. Opposite Party
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
In Case Crime No. 2261 of 2007 U/s 8/18/20 N.D.P.S. Act Police Station Tanakpur District Champawat With 2[nd] Bail Application No. 1064 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused.
Jai Prakash S/o Sri Niranjan Pasad
…….. Applicant …….. Opposite Party
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
In Case Crime No. 2262 of 2007 U/s 8/18/20 N.D.P.S. Act Police Station Tanakpur District Champawat Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J.
Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicants; Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State; and perused the record.
This is the 2[nd] Bail Application moved by the applicants. The 1[st] bail applications moved by the applicants have been rejected by this court on 10/09/2008 and 22/10/2008 in Bail Application Nos. 672 of 2008 and 562 of 2008 respectiviely.
The earlier bail applications moved by the applicants Laxman Singh and Jai Prakash before the trial court were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 15[th] March, 2008. Thereafter, statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded in the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicants tried to stress about the contradictory statements of the witnesses made during the course of the evidence. It would be just and proper to direct the applicants to move a fresh bail applications before the learned trial court and the learned trial court would be at liberty to dispose of the bail applications moved by the applicants not being prejudiced with the fact that earlier bail applications of the applicants have been rejected by the trial court.
It is directed that if the applicants move bail applicantions before the trial court, their bail applications will be heard afresh in the light of the evidence recorded by the trial court and will be decided in accordance with the law. The trial court would not be influenced by the fact that these bail applications have been disposed of by this Court.
The bail applications are disposed of accordingly.
(J.C.S. Rawat, J.)
Dated 31.12.2008 Shiv