Nepal Singh 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. The

present applicant along with the co-accused persons used to come to his shop and threatened 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 the 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 the

co-accused persons.

Heard Mr. Anurag Bisaria, the learned counsel with Mr. Shiv Pande, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggawal, the learned

Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Anurag Bisaria, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; the said recovery is false;

he is in custody since 11.08.2020; co-accused persons of identical role have been granted bail by this Court; the applicant has no criminal history and

charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that the co-accused persons of the identical role have been granted

bail by this 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 merit 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 Nepal Singh 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.