High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravi Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 25 November 2021 · Citation: (2021) 11 UK CK 0140

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 379, 411 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2940 Of 2021
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

10 paragraphs · 367 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.478 of 2021, registered with Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 379, 411, 34 of IPC.

2.

According to the F.I.R. dated 31.10.2021 an E-Rickshaw of the informant was stolen. The F.I.R. was registered against unknown person. During the investigation, an E-Rickshaw was recovered from the custody of the applicant and the co-accused person.

3.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sachin Panwar, the learned Brief Holder for the State.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter; the F.I.R. was registered against unknown person; there was no public witness in the alleged recovery; the applicant has no criminal history; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; the said offence is triable by the Magistrate; charge sheet has been filed, thereafter, there is no chance for tampering with the evidence.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

The bail application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant Ravi 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.