Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/482/2008 of KOMAL SINGH Vs STATE on 29 December 2008
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the 29th December, 2008 1st Bail Application No. 482 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Komal Singh S/o Sri Ranbir Singh ….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Opposite Party In Case Crime No. 619
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 29[th ]December, 2008
1[st] Bail Application No. 482 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused.
Komal Singh S/o Sri Ranbir Singh
….. Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
…Opposite Party
In Case Crime No. 619 of 2007 U/s 364, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal With 1[st] Bail Application No. 492 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Sanju S/o Sri Lakhan Singh ….
…. Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
…. Opposite Party
In Case Crime No. 619 of 2007 U/s 364, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali New Tehri District Tehri Garhwal Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.
Heard Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate for the applicant Komal Singh; Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant Sanju; Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State; and perused the record.
The earlier bail applications of the applicants Komal Singh and Sanju were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 7[th] February, 2008 and 9[th]April, 2008 respectively. Thereafter, statements of four 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 was further contended that statement of four witnesses have been recorded. It would be just and proper to direct the applicants to move a fresh bail application 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 application 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 29.12.2008 Shiv