Himanshu Sharma 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 F.I.R.

No.0203 of 2020, registered with Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 365 & 367

of I.P.C. .

On 11.08.2020, at 20.05 hrs., an FIR was lodged by the informant Islamuddin that the informant had a welding shop in the name of Raja

Fabrication. One Daya Kishan was working there along with him. Daya Kishan had a dispute regarding money with the present applicant and co-

accused persons, who used to come to his shop and threaten Daya Kishan by saying that if he does not pay, then they will beat him and kidnap him.

On 11.08.2020 at 17.40 hrs, the present applicant along with co-accused persons came to his shop and took Daya Kishan forcefully in a Innova Car.

On the same day, i.e. 11.08.2020, Daya Kishan was recovered from the possession of the present applicant and co-accused persons.

Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant crime; Daya Kishan himself went in the

Car with him; he was never abducted; after four hours from the alleged incident, the alleged victim was recovered at about 15 kilometers from the

place of the alleged incident; if he had actually been abducted, he would have traveled more distance in those four hours; the applicant is in custody

since 11.08.2020; he has no criminal history and the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Counter affidavit has not been filed by the State, despite obtaining sufficient and last opportunity to file the same. However, Mr. Lalit Miglani,

learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application orally. During his argument, he submitted that charge sheet has been filed.

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.