Imran 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.168 of 2020, registered with Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 395, 412 of IPC and Section 25 (1-

B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

According to the present matter, on 01.06.2020, an FIR was lodged by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Manager, Inder Filling Station alleging therein that on

01.06.2020 at around 01:40 am., three boys riding a motorcycle broke the lock of the cupboard after hurting two employees of the filing station and

took Rs.7,50,000/-. The FIR was registered against unknown persons. On 06.06.2020, the present applicant along with co-accused persons were

arrested. At the time of their arrest, Rs.63,000/- and a firearm were recovered from each of them, including the present applicant.

Heard Mr. P. C. Petshali, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he is not named in the FIR; nothing

was recovered from the possession of the applicant; the alleged recovery was totally planted; the applicant was arrested from his house; no Test

Identification Parade was conducted; the applicant has no criminal history; the applicant is in custody since 06.06.2020; the co-accused persons of the

identical role have been granted bail by this High Court; charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the

evidence.

Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application orally, however, he fairly conceded that the co-accused

persons of the identical role have been granted bail by this High Court and the applicant has no criminal history.

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.