"Definitely a case of mob lynching:" Uttarakhand High Court denies bail to five people accused of lynching boy who was found in company of a girl

The Uttarakhand High Court recently rejected the bail plea by five persons accused of lynching a young boy after he was found with a girl (Nar Singh v. State of Uttrakhand)..Single-judge Justice Ravindra Maithani while rejecting the plea, observed that it is definitely a case of mob lynching of the young boy who was brutally beaten and there is no room for bail for such offences."It is definitely a case of mob lynching. A young boy has been brutally beaten allegedly by the applicants and co-accused. Witnesses have stated that applicants also assaulted mercilessly the deceased and injured Kailash. Witnesses have verified it by examining the video clippings. There is no room for bail for such an offences. It is a heinous offence. Therefore, the bail application of all the applicants are liable to be rejected," the Court observed. .The Court also came down heavily on the police officer in charge of Police station, Dania who instead of providing medical aid to the boy, confined him to the police station. "A young boy has been beaten to death by the villagers in a group. After giving him merciless beating, the deceased was handed over to Police, who, though, got him examined medically, but, did not follow the treatment, did not go for investigation. It appears that instead of proceeding further to provide medical aid to Bhuwan Chandra Joshi, he was confined in the Police Thana," the Court observed. The Court, therefore, ordered Superintendent of Police, Almora to examine the role of the erring police official. "Superintendent of Police, Almora shall further examine the role of the in-charge Police Station, Dania, who instead of further pursuing the medical advice of doctor, confined the injured Bhuwan Chandra in Police Thana, who subsequently died," the Court ordered. .The Court directed the Superintendent of Police that the role shall be investigated particularly on the following points:On April 28, 2021, deceased Bhuwan Chandra was examined at community health centre (CHC) Dhauladevi and doctor advised for X-ray. Why X-ray was not done? Doctors at CHC Dhauladevi after examining deceased Bhuwan Chandra on April 28, 2021 did not give any conclusive opinion it was subject to investigation; Why without further investigation as suggested by the doctor, deceased Bhuwan Chandra was lodged in police station?.The bail applications were moved by Nar Singh, Diwan Singh, Mahesh Chandra Pandey, Daya Kishan Pandey and Harish Chandra Pandey, who were in judicial custody..The said incident took place on April 28, when one Deepa Pandey called the deceased Bhuwan Chandra to her village. Both of them were good friends and the deceased along with his friends, Kailash and Lalit Singh visited Deepa’s village on a motorcycle. They met up at Government Inter College when the accused surrounded Bhuwan Chandra and Deepa and assaulted them. It was later informed that, in order to implicate Bhuwan Chandra, an FIR was also lodged by a co-accused and the police was called to the spot. The police arrested Bhuwan Chandra and injured Kailash. Later, Bhuwan Chandra’s health started deteriorating due to beating given to him by the applicants and co-accused, and subsequently, he died. A complaint was filed on April 29 by the brother of the deceased..First Information Report was lodged for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147, 149 and 304 IPC. .In this regard, the Court doubted the intention of the authorities and placed reliance on the injuries sustained by the deceased."It appears that instead of proceeding further to provide medical aid to Bhuwan Chandra Joshi, he was confined in the Police Thana. The doctors who conducted post-mortem of the deceased Bhuwan Chandra have categorically stated that he died of head injury. Dr. Chanchal Singh Marchal and Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, both have stated it to the Investigating Officer."The State filed some video clippings of the incident while submitting that credibility of the video is yet to be examined. It was argued that it is a case of custodial death and the applicant have been falsely implicated. Hence, it is a case fit for bail.The Court, however, raised questions regarding the source of the video. "Who prepared the video? What is its source? and why the deceased was not referred to the higher centre or sent for investigation as suggested by the doctor at community health centre and said these issues will definitely be raised at some subsequent stage," the Court noted.Since the State counsel could not tell from whose device the video clippings were obtained and how the same were obtained, the Court said that the probe should be entrusted to an officer conversant with collection of scientific evidence"State Counsel is not in a position to tell as to how and from whose device, the video clippings were obtained. This is scientific evidence. The way it is being projected before the Court, particularly, the learned State Counsel is not in a position to tell as to from whose device the video clippings are taken, this Court considers that Senior Superintendant of Police, Almora should look into this aspect and entrust the investigation of the instant case to some senior officer who is conversant with collection of scientific evidence and production of them in the Court," the Court said. But it is definitely a case of mob lynching, the Court said while dismissing the bail applications. .[Read Order]