Paramjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.63 of 2019, registered with Police Station Kaladhungi,

District Nainital, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353 & 34 of the I.P.C.

According to the FIR dated 22.06.2019, the informant-Deepak Negi along with team members of Forest Department were informed that wood was

cutting by some person. They reached at the spot and found that some persons were cutting the trees. At about 02.10 a.m. some persons came on

motorcycle, amongst them one person was co-accused Lakhvinder Singh. The informant along with his team members challenged to them. They

started firing upon them. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from the place of incident leaving a mobile phone and two motorcycles on the spot. The

injured Bahadur Singh Chauhan was declared dead by the doctors.

Heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; the applicant is not named in the FIR; he has been falsely

implicated; the co-accused has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, neither mobile phone nor motorcycle were connected

with this applicant; there is no criminal history of the applicant; he is in custody since 06.07.2019.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly concedes that the applicant has no criminal history; co-

accused person has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court; role of the present applicant is similar as alleged against co-

accused, who has been granted bail; the present applicant is not connected with the recovery of mobile or motorcycles.

The applicant is resident of District Udham Singh Nagar. He has no criminal history; he is in custody since 06.07.2019. Co-accused, who has

similar role, has been granted bail by the Co-Ordiante Bench of this High Court.

The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative

according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, 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.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant 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.