High CourtsSingle Bench

Kadir vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 4 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 UK CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 380, 411, 454 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1467 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 363 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 406 of 2022, registered with Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 380, 411, 454, 34 of I.P.C.

2.

According to the First Information Report, on 13.05.2022, jewellery was stolen from the house of the informant. The First Information Report was lodged against unknown person on 16.05.2022 at 11:53. During the investigation, stolen jewellery was recovered from the possession of the present applicant.

3.

Heard Mr. Shariq Khurshid, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.S. Rathore, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; the First Information Report was lodged against unknown person; nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant; the alleged recovery was planted; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; he has no criminal history, and, he is in custody since 18.05.2022.

5.

The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application orally.

6.

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 investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

7.

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.

8.

The bail application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant- Kadir 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.