Gulsher @ Sultan 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 FIR

No.0120 of 2020, registered with Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 506, 504 and 120-B of

IPC.

On 04.03.2020, an information was given by the informant Mohammad Rizwan Ansari to the Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital alleging that

he got a call from a mobile number 9012026427 on his mobile phone and he was asked to give money to Rahul Srivastava. One day, Rahul Srivastava

came to his house and threatened that if Rs.8 Lakhs were not given, he would shoot the entire family. After that, a phone of a man named Sultan

came from the mobile phone number 9639590457 and he threatened to kill him. Bhoopi Bora gave him the phone number of Rahul Srivastava and

Naushad Ali and asked him to deposit money. Then due to fear, he deposited Rs.40,000/- in Naushad Ali’s account. An FIR was registered

against the present applicant and co-accused persons, namely, Rahul Srivastava, Bhoopi Bora, and Naushad Ali.

Heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through

video conferencing.

Mr. S.R.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated in this matter;

there is no evidence that the applicant demanded money; the said mobile number 9639590457 did not belong to the applicant; no said phone or SIM

card was recovered from the possession of the applicant; the present matter is triable by the Magistrate; the applicant is in custody since 5.03.2020;

the co-accused Rahul Srivastava has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court; and, charge-sheet has already been filed,

therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence

Mr. T. C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the co-

accused Rahul Srivastava has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High 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, there is no reason to keep

the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, 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, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction

of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The 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, the prosecution will be free to move the court for

cancellation of bail.