Danish 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 Case

Crime No.36 of 2020, registered with Police Station-Banbhulpura, District-Nainital, for the offence punishable under Sections 380, 411 and 457 of the

IPC.

Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ahrar Baig, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rohit Dhyani, learned

Brief Holder for the State.

Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated; he is a resident of District-Nainital; he has no criminal history; he

is in custody since 11.01.2021 and the co-accused has been granted bail by the Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

Bail is the rule and the 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 investigation/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, 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 â€" Danish 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.