Neeraj Tiwari Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Neeraj Tiwari vs State of Uttarakhand

Disposition Application dismissed Court Uttaranchal Decided Jun 15, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/902657

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/902657
Court: Uttaranchal High Court
Judge: Dharam Veer, J.
Decided On: Jun 15, 2010
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MINING Direction to State Government to consider all applications afresh in light of interpretation of Section 11 of the Act and Rules 35, 59 and 60 of MC Rules Main issue : Whether the State Government's recommendation dated 06.12.2004 and the proceedings of the Chief Minister are contrary to the provisions of...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Neeraj Tiwari

Respondent

State of Uttarakhand

Excerpt

.....dated 15.03.2003.[para 42] d) whether rule 35 of the mc rules justify the recommendation of the state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. thus it confines the concept of "captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments". even the residuary clauses in section 11(3)(e) are limited to "matters as may be prescribed", which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. this is fortified by decision of this court in bsnl ltd. & anr. vs. bpl mobile cellular ltd. & ors., (2008) 13 scc 597, para 45.[para 35] f) whether factors such as the past commitments by the state government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the mmdr act and the mc rules constituting a..........dan giri, bhupal singh rawat, si pratap singh negi, c.o. harish chandra sati, satish joshi, constable sanjay kumar and complainant sher singh kanwal and copy of arrest/recovery memo have also been annexed along with the counter affidavit of state, which corroborate the prosecution story as well as the version made in the fir. learned addl. ga further argued that post mortem report also corroborate the version of fir which shows that the firearm wound, entry wound, exist wound and lacerated wound on the body of deceased.7. having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the fir, recovery memo, statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 cr pc, post mortem report and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the accused applicant and credible evidence has been collected by the i.o. to prove the involvement of accused applicant in the alleged crime and after the investigation chargesheet has also been filed. applicant is the main accused and specific role of firing by the pistol has been assigned to him and due to the said firearm injury balwant singh kanyal died. hence, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the seriousness of the offence, i do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail.8. the bail application is accordingly rejected.

Full Judgment

Dharam Veer, J.

1. Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate holding brief of Smt. Manju Kotaliya, Advocate for the applicant.

2. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State.

3. Heard.

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 22.8.2009 at about 9.30 pm, the complainant Sher Singh Kanwal was having dinner in Union Restaurant along with his brother-in-law Balwant Singh Kanyal (Block Pramukh), Rajeev Kumar Valia, Bhupal Singh and Khushal Singh. After sometime accused applicant Neeraj Tiwari and co-accused Neeraj Harwil came there along with his 3-4 other companions and started abusing Balwant Singh Kanyal. When Balwant Singh Kanyal asked the reason then they started scuffling with him. Soon thereafter police of PS Kaladhungi came there and took away the accused applicant Neeraj Tiwari and his companions as well as Balwant Singh Kanyal to the police station. After sometime, the complainant along with his companions also reached at the police station and at about 10.30 to 11.45 pm saw that Balwant Singh Kanyal was shot in his head by accused applicant Neeraj Tiwari in the presence of police inside the police station. Balwant Singh Kanyal died on the spot. The dead body was taken to Base Hospital, Haldwani by the police at 12 hours in the midnight where the Doctors declared him dead. With these averments FIR was lodged by Sher Singh Kanwal with PS Haldwani.

5. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr PC are contradictory to each other and do not support the prosecution case. He further argued that it was averred on behalf of prosecution that the accused applicant had shot thrice on the deceased Balwant Singh Kanyal but only one bullet injury has been shown on the body of deceased which is contradictory to the prosecution story.

6. Opposing the bail application of the accused applicant, learned Addl. GA for the State argued that the applicant shot Balwant Singh Kanyal with intention to kill him and when he was arrested by the police on 24.8.2009, the pistol used in the commission of offence and three cartridges were recovered from his possession. Statements of Khushal Singh, Constable Dan Giri, Bhupal Singh Rawat, SI Pratap Singh Negi, C.O. Harish Chandra Sati, Satish Joshi, Constable Sanjay Kumar and complainant Sher Singh Kanwal and copy of arrest/recovery memo have also been annexed along with the counter affidavit of State, which corroborate the prosecution story as well as the version made in the FIR. Learned Addl. GA further argued that post mortem report also corroborate the version of FIR which shows that the firearm wound, entry wound, exist wound and lacerated wound on the body of deceased.

7. Having heard the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR, recovery memo, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr PC, post mortem report and other papers available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that a prima facie case is made out against the accused applicant and credible evidence has been collected by the I.O. to prove the involvement of accused applicant in the alleged crime and after the investigation chargesheet has also been filed. Applicant is the main accused and specific role of firing by the pistol has been assigned to him and due to the said firearm injury Balwant Singh Kanyal died. Hence, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the seriousness of the offence, I do not find any ground to release the accused applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is accordingly rejected.

Same Court & Year Uttaranchal · 2010 Same Parties Neeraj Tiwari vs State of Uttarakhand Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Dharam Veer, J.

Criminal