Furkan vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.991 of 2022, registered at Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar.

Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 307, 332, 333, 336, 353, 420, 398 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case of the prosecution is that the informant Constable Surendra Sharma was present with Constable Pancham Prakash in the area of his police station. They received information that some unknown persons were roaming near Durga Mandir over bridge, Laksar. Three suspicious persons were seen at around 17:15 hrs. on 16.10.2022. An attempt was made to interrogate them. One of them open fire at them. Meanwhile, two unknown persons reached the spot. Constable Pancham Prakash had received gunshot injury on his leg. All the said five persons managed to escape from the spot. First Information Report was registered against the unknown persons.

Heard Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant is an innocent person. He was not named in the First Information Report. The name of the present applicant came to light in the confessional statements of the co-accused persons. Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is not a previous convict. He is in custody since 02.07.2023. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and, co-accused persons of similar role have already been granted bail by this Court.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he has conceded that the co-accused persons of similar role have already been granted bail by this Court.

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 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, no reason is found 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.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Furkan 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.

It is clarified 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.