Gaurav Kumar Alias Fauzi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.482 of 2018, registered with Police Station

Rishikesh, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 read with 34 of the I.P.C.

According to the FIR dated 16.10.2018, in the night of 14.10.2018, Bullet Motorcycle of the informant, bearing registration No.UK 14B 1448, was

stolen by some unknown persons. During investigation, co-accused persons were arrested.

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of

Uttarakhand.

The applicant is facing trial. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; the applicant has been falsely

implicated; the FIR was lodged against unknown person; the co-accused Anurag Sharma alias Anuj Pandit has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this High Court; the applicant is in custody since 14.12.2018.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly concedes that co-accused person has been granted bail

by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court.

The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative

according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and 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 be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, one of which will be a member of his

family, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the condition that the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates the condition imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move the concerned court for

cancellation of the bail.