High CourtsSingle Bench

Ataur Rehman vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 20 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 UK CK 0074

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 352, 398, 452, 511
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2453 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 478 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

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.969 of 2022, registered at police station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar.

2.

Applicant is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 352, 398, 452, 511 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

As per the allegations of the First Information Report dated 07.10.2022, on 06.10.2022 at around 8:00 p.m., the daughter-in-law of the informant went inside her house, and, at the same time, 5-6 masked miscreants tried to enter her house with weapons. The daughter-in-law of the informant quickly closed the door from inside.

4.

Ms. Shalini Thakral, Advocate, contended that the present applicant was not named in the First Information Report. His name has come to light in the confessional statement of the co-accused Shakil. Applicant was not present at the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Meerut (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is in custody since 17.04.2023. He is not a previous convict. The co-accused Naushad has already been granted bail by this Court, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

5.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the bail application. However, he has conceded that the name of the applicant has come to light in the confessional statement of the co-accused, and, a co-accused of similar role has been granted bail by this Court.

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

The Bail Application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant- Ataur Rehman 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.

10.

It is made clear 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.