AKHILESH MOHAN BAHUGUNA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second bail application. The first bail application, which was preferred by the applicant, for his alleged involvement in the commission of the offences under Ss. 302, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, which was registered at Police Station Ranipokhari, District Dehradun, by way of a Case Crime No. 19 of 2019, has been rejected by this Court by an order dtd. 24/6/2021.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant had argued the second bail application, in fact as if it was a de novo argument, which was required to be reconsidered, while considering the second bail application of the applicant - Akhilesh Mohan Bahuguna, though, with certain exception, based upon the judgments on which he had relied with, while arguing this second bail application

(3.) Before dealing with the judgments relied, and particularly, in order to answer the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, which this Court is judicially bound to consider and answer, each and every arguments, as to whether there was a clear bent of mind and premeditated intention for the applicant, for the commission of the offences complaint of in the FIR, whether was there in itself or not in order to extract the exceptions, which has been carved out by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, relied with by the learned counsel for the applicant. This Court is of the view, that the appreciation of contents of the FIR itself becomes relevant before venturing to answer to the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the applicant.