Rishi Pal vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. Regarding the issue of false implication and lack of evidence, the Court noted the FIR was lodged promptly after the incident, and the FSL report confirmed methanol poison in the liquor recovered from the applicant. Crucially, the Court found that the witness (PW-5) clearly stated the deceased consumed liquor at the applicant's residence, leading to his death. On the issue of parity, the Court distinguished the applicant's case from that of co-accused Amit Kumar Gupta. The Court observed that Amit Kumar Gupta was a proprietor who sold methanol with GST bills, whereas the deceased did not purchase methanol from his company. Instead, the deceased consumed illegal drugs mixed with methanol at the applicant's residence. The Court concluded that the applicant knew the liquor was unfit for consumption and provided it to the deceased, making the case not fit for parity with the co-accused. Given the gravity of the offense, bail was not granted at this stage.

Facts

The applicant, Rishi Pal, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 22 of 2019, registered for offenses including murder, poisoning, and criminal conspiracy under the IPC, Excise Act, and Poisons Act. The FIR stemmed from the deaths of several individuals in the Roorkee area after consuming illegal liquor mixed with methanol. The prosecution alleged that the applicant provided this poisonous liquor to the deceased, knowing it was unfit for human consumption. During the investigation, four liters of illegal liquor were recovered from the applicant's possession, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of methanol poison. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, and that a co-accused, Amit Kumar Gupta, had been granted bail on parity. The State opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of false implication and lack of evidence, considering the FIR and subsequent investigation? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on parity with co-accused Amit Kumar Gupta, who was enlarged on bail? (Question of law) Arguments for the Applicant: - The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. - There is no evidence against him. - He has been in jail since February 19, 2019. - He has no prior criminal history. - He should be granted bail on parity with co-accused Amit Kumar Gupta. Arguments for the State: - The State opposed the bail application. - The occurrence involved multiple deaths due to methanol-laced illegal liquor. - A key witness (PW-5), brother of the deceased, identified the applicant as the provider of the liquor consumed by the deceased. - Methanol poison was confirmed by FSL report in liquor recovered from the applicant. - The co-accused Amit Kumar Gupta was involved in selling methanol to another entity via bill with GST, distinguishing his role from the applicant's direct provision of poisonous liquor.