RAM BISHWAS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicants, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate for the complainant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per the prosecution story Ram Bishwas and Lakhai Bishwas were armed with tamanchas, Love Bishwas was armed with Patal and applicant Kushal Bishwas was armed with Sabal and with their respective weapons they caused injuries to the complainant and his father due to which his father Ravindra Nath died on the spot but according to the post-mortem report of the deceased only one contusion was found as ante- mortem injury and cause of death could not be ascertained therefore viscera was preserved. He further submitted that the post-mortem report does not support the contents of FIR and creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.

(3.) After considering all the facts and circumstances, perusing the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, without expressing any opinion about the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants deserve bail at this stage.