Nindepal 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 the First Information Report No.692 of 2021, registered with Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC.

The First Information Report was lodged by the informant Dr. Praveen Saalar. According to the FIR, at around 11.10 hrs on 29.06.2021, one Vipin and one unknown person fired on the deceased, Ajay, due to which, he died. The First Information Report was registered at 15.43 hrs on 29.06.2021. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet is filed.

Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the informant.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated; according to the evidence, recorded by the Investigating Officer, the deceased was shot by the co-accused Vipin and Abhishek; during the investigation, no evidence has been found against the present applicant; no evidence of conspiracy has been found; co-accused persons, namely, Sunny and Pintu have been granted bail by this High Court; the role of the present applicant is identical as assigned to the co-accused persons, who were granted bail; the applicant has no criminal history; he is in judicial custody since 22.09.2021, and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail application. However, they fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal history and the role assigned to the present applicant is identical as assigned to the co-accused persons, namely, Sunny and Pintu.

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-Nindepal 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 will attend the trial court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The applicant will 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.