High CourtsSingle Bench

Manawwar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 29 December 2025 · Citation: (2025) 12 UK CK 1322

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 304(2), 317(2) · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1578 Of 2025
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 · 375 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The applicant – Manawwar is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 304(2) and Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.195 of 2025, registered at Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar.

2.

According to the respondent, the applicant and the co-accused Sufiyan came on a motorcycle (Registration No.UK17X3596) and snatched a bag of the informant’s wife. The First Information Report was registered on 22.07.2025. The said bag, bank passbook, Aadhar card, PAN card and Identity card were recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused.

3.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not involved in the said offences. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The said recovery was planted. The said offences are triable by Magistrate. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Sufiyan, the co-accused of similar role, has already been granted regular bail by Sessions Court, and, applicant is in custody since 23.07.2025.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the bail application.

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, no reason is found 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- Manawwar 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.