High CourtsSingle Bench

Nitin Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 April 2022 · Citation: (2022) 04 UK CK 0118

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 392, 411 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 743 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

9 paragraphs · 363 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

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.643 of 2021, registered with Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun for the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of IPC.

2.

Heard Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the First Information Report, on 08.12.2021 at around 14:57 hours, one person came on a YAMA motorcycle, bearing No.U.P.14 DV-6097, snatched Rs.18,000/- from the salesman of the informant and ran away; the said FIR has been registered against unknown person; the FIR is belated. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the said recovery of the motorcycle and Rs.4,000/- from the possession of the present applicant are false and planted. There was no public witness in the proceeding of the alleged recovery; the applicant is in custody since 30.12.2021; and charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance for tampering with the evidence.

4.

The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

The bail application is allowed.

8.

Let the applicant Nitin Kumar 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.