Anand Singh Manral @ Annu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma J

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand.

This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.64 of 2020, registered with Police Station Ramnagar,

District Nainital for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 336, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The First Information Report was lodged by the informant Rajendra Singh Rawat on 03.02.2020 against the present applicant and one unknown

person with the allegations that on 03.02.2020, the informant along with other forest officials were on routine duty. At about 19:30 hours, the present

applicant and one unknown person came there and abusing with filthy languages and also threatened them. Informant and other forest officials tried to

stop them, but they fired in air and fled away.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated; he is in custody since 04.02.2020 and the

said offence is triable by Magistrate. Co-accused has been granted bail by this High Court.

The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand opposed the bail application, however, the learned Deputy Advocate General

for the State concedes that the applicant is in custody since 04.02.2020 and co-accused has been granted bail by this High Court. Learned counsel

appearing for the State further submits that three criminal cases are pending against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said three criminal cases are of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 353, 504 & 506

of the I.P.C. and the applicant has been granted bail in all above-mentioned three criminal cases.

The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative

according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion

as to the merits 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 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.