Ajeet vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.692 of 2021, registered with Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, Roorkee, District Haridwar for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”).

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the informant Dr. Praveen Saalar lodged an FIR alleging therein that at around 11:10 hrs. on 29.06.2021, one Vipin and one unknown person fired on the deceased Ajay, due to which, he died. The First Information Report was registered at 15:43 hrs. on 29.06.2021. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Ajay Joshi, the learned counsel for the informant.

Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter; according to the evidence, collected by the Investigating Officer, the deceased was shot by the co-accused persons, namely, Vipin and Abhishek; the applicant is a real brother of the co-accused Vipin and brother-in-law of the co-accused Abhishek, therefore, the applicant has been implicated; no evidence against the applicant, regarding the alleged conspiracy, has been found during the investigation.

On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the State, and, Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the informant, opposed the bail application and submitted that during the investigation evidence of the conspiracy to this effect has been found against the applicant that on the fateful day, before the incident, one call from Mobile No.8171201220 of the present applicant was received by Mr. Binder, the employee of the deceased, on his Mobile No.8449422504.

After sought time to file call details, the State has filed a copy of the call details with supplementary counter affidavit. However, during the arguments, the learned counsel for the State fairly conceded that in paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 04.04.2022 of Rafat Ali, the Investigating Officer, it is clearly mentioned that the said Mobile No. 8449422504 belongs to Binder. However, the call details indicate that the said mobile number belongs to one Mr. Ram Kumar son of Mr. Nain Singh, r/o Village Makhdhoompur, Roorkee.

Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and, Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the informant, further submitted that one more circumstance against the applicant was found during the investigation, which is a footage of CCTV. According to them, the involvement of the present applicant can be seen in the said footage. However, after availing sufficient opportunity to file the said footage, no such footage has been filed either by State or by the informant.

Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and, Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the informant submitted that after filing of the Special Leave Petition, the present applicant had surrendered before the concerned court and after looking at his past conduct, the possibility cannot be ruled out that if the applicant is granted bail, he will abscond.

Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar. She further submitted that stringent conditions may be imposed on the applicant and the applicant undertakes to comply all the conditions. Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. Two co-accused persons, charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC, have been granted bail by this High Court. The applicant is in judicial custody since 31.08.2021 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

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, there is no reason 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-Ajeet 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) The applicant will attend the trial court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The applicant will 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, the Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.