Pramod vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.395 of 2023, registered at police station Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

Applicant – Pramod is in judicial custody under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 333, 353, 427, 436, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

The First Bail Application (No.1689 of 2023) was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.08.2023.

As per the allegations of the First Information Report dated 12.06.2023, thirteen named and other unknown persons, armed with lathis and country made pistol, were causing damages to the houses of another community. When police arrived at the place of occurrence, they were abused and stones were pelted upon them. Fire was also opened upon the police.

Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vijay Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Bhaskar Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He was not present on the spot. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is in judicial custody since 06.10.2023. He does not have any criminal antecedents, and, eight co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Court of Session.

Mr. Bhaskar Joshi, learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he has fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal history, and, the co-accused persons of the similar role have been granted bail by the Court of Session.

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.

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 Second Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Pramod 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 on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

(ii) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available at the time of interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required;

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail.