DEVENDRA SINGH ALIAS LABBA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is first bail application moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 412 of 2016, under Sections 302, 328, 34 I.P.C, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime; has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 28.12.2016. He submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., as the same was registered against unknown persons. He submitted that the statement given by Bhupender Singh is totally false and has been given in order to falsely implicate the applicant. He referred to the Inquest Report, in which the father of the deceased, namely, Gurdeep Singh, uncle of the deceased, namely, Gurmukh Singh and maternal uncle of the deceased, namely, Bhupender Singh also signed. At that time, Bhupender Singh did not disclose anything. He kept mum for 14-15 days and, subsequently, named the applicant as well as Balwant Singh that they administered some powder in the peg of the deceased, which, according to them, is poison. He submitted that nobody will keep mum for 14-15 days. This falsifies the story of prosecution. He submitted that had this story been true, Bhupender Singh would have certainly told this fact to the Investigating Officer earlier. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that the person, who saw the dead body first and phoned to the father of the deceased, is not shown anywhere. It is not known as to whether that person is involved in the alleged murder of the deceased. He further submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and motive behind the murder is totally lacking. He also submitted that nobody has said that the powder, which was administered in the peg of the deceased, is particular type of poisonous powder. He argued that there is no other evidence in the matter and applicant should be released on bail.

(3.) Mr. A.D. Massey, learned counsel also appearing for the applicant submitted that, in the Viscera Report of the deceased, Ethyl Alcohol and Aluminium phosphide poison have been detected. He referred to paragraph nos. 14 and 19 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Jaipal vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 250, and submitted that Aluminium phosphide is such type of poison, which is not generally used in cases of homicidal death. In case such a poison is kept inside the room, it will fill the room with smell. He submitted that it is not possible that such type of poison was given to the deceased, as in the said case, the deceased would have certainly smelled the bad smell and would not have drunk the said peg. He submitted that, in such cases, vomiting is a prominent feature, which is not present in the instant case. Paragraph nos. 14 and 19 of the said judgment read as under: