Uttarakhand High Court
Gurmit Singh @ Geji vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 2139 of 2024
Gurmit Singh @ Geji ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.
232 of 2024, under Section 109(1), 121(2), 132, 191(3), 111 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959
and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, P.S. Gadarpur, District
Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The informant in the instant case of Range Officer,
Forest. According to the FIR, upon an information having been
received, the informant along with his subordinates reached at the
spot and found that the applicant and the co-accused were cutting
trees. They were challenged by the forest personnels, but, according to
the FIR, the accused started firing, due to which the forest personnels
sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
FIR is delayed by a day; nothing has been shown as to how the
witnesses did identify the applicant; the applicant was not present at
the spot; merely because there were some cases pending against the
applicant, he has falsely been implicated in the present case.
2
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is the
applicant, who opened fire on the Forest Officials and the injured has
categorically stated that he knew the applicant.
6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not
expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any
observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any
subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.
7. The Forest Range Officer is the informant in the instant
case. He has given statement to the Investigating Officer. According to
him, he knew the applicant and on the date of incident, he had spotted
the applicant and the co-accused cutting the trees. There are
witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. Medical injury
report also finds corroboration. As per the prosecution, the applicant
was illegally cutting the trees. But, when stopped from doing so, he
opened fire. It is a very serious case.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not
a case fit for bail. The bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
24.02.2025
Avneet/
