Anek vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The applicant is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 109 (1) read with Section 3(5), Section 305(a), Section 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 in Case Crime No.571 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar.

According to the respondent, at around 2-2. 30 hrs. on 25.08.2025, a golden chain, a ring, earrings, bangles, clothes and Rs.16,000/- were stolen from the house of the informant. The informant’s son chased thieves. They opened fire on the informant’s son, but it did not hit him. The First Information Report was registered on 26.08.2025 against unknown person. A country made pistol of 315 bore used in firing, one live cartridge and one empty shell were recovered on the behest of the applicant and co-accused Rinku.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate contended that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. He was not involved in the said offence. He has been falsely implicated by the police. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. The Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, he is in custody since 22.10.2025.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder has opposed the bail application orally.

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 in detention during the investigation 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 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-Anek 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.