Aash Mohammad Alias Ashu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.54 of 2023, registered at police station Buggawala, District Haridwar.

Applicant is in judicial custody under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Based on a secret information, received from the police informer, the police party raided the spot on 16.05.2023. Four persons were present on the spot. They were tying the legs of a cow. They opened fire on the police party. The police party also opened fire in self-defense. Applicant was arrested. He was shot on his leg. A pistol of 315 bore and one fired cartridge were recovered from his possession and eleven cows were recovered from the spot. Charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer after the completion of the investigation.

Heard Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Applicant did not open fire on the police party. No member of the police party was hit by the alleged fire. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged offence. Initially, the police had implicated the present applicant in FIR No.231 of 2023 under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 on the basis of the statement of co-accused person. Applicant had filed an Anticipatory Bail Application. Anticipatory Bail was granted to the applicant in the said FIR No.231 of 2023. On 15.05.2023, he was directed to present in the police station. He along with his relative Rihan reached the police station. They were illegally detained. On the very same day, the brother of Rihan made a complaint to the Uttarakhand State Human Rights Commission on its online portal. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. 16.05.2023, the police implicated the applicant along with co-accused Rihan in the present matter after having fired shot on their respective legs. Applicant has no criminal history. He is in custody since 16.05.2023. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding.

Mr. M.K. Chand, A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he has conceded that the applicant is not a previous convict.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Aash Mohammad alias Ashu be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.