High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 UK CK 0192

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Bharti Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1048 Of 2023
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

7 paragraphs · 344 words

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

1.

Applicant  Rahul  Sharma, who  is  in  judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.41 of 2022, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal, has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant /accused and only fault of the applicant/accused is that he was the Bank Manager at the time when the alleged offence, as per the prosecution story, has taken place. He would further submit that if at all any offence has been committed that may be only the negligence on the part of the applicant/accused while posted as Bank Manager. He would further submit that the co-accused Saurabh Sukhija @ Manu has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.07.2023 and the applicant/accused is also entitled to be released on bail on the basis of parity; that, the applicant/accused is in judicial custody since 18.04.2023; that, the charge sheet has been filed and nothing is to be recovered from him.

4.

Per contra, learned D.A.G. appearing for the State would submit that there seems to be no other evidence except that he was the Bank Manager at the relevant time. On repeated requests made by the Court, learned State Counsel could not place any evidence, which has been collected during investigation and included in the charge sheet against the applicant/accused, except that he was the Bank Manager at the time of alleged offence.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail.

6.

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹50,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.