High CourtsSingle Bench

Durga Singh Harkotiya vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 28 April 2022 · Citation: (2022) 04 UK CK 0127

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Section 9, 39, 49B, 51 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 756 Of 2022
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

10 paragraphs · 393 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This Bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in Case Crime No. H 02, Case No. 09 of 2021-2022 of Munsyari Range, District Pithoragarh for the offence under Section 9 read with Section 51, Section 49-B read with Section 51 and Section 39 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

2.

Heard Mr. Amit Kapri, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A for the State.

3.

According to the present matter, on 28.02.2022, bile bear, 630 gram, of four bears were recovered on the road from the possession of the present applicant.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that nothing had been recovered from the possession of the applicant; the alleged recovery was false and planted; there is no prima facie evidence on the record regarding the possession, custody and control of the applicant, over the alleged bile bear; there was no independent public witness in the process of the alleged recovery; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Bageshwar; he has no criminal history and he is in custody since 28.02.2022.

5.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A for the State, opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal history.

6.

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 investigation or 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 Durga Singh Harkotiya 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.