Sachin Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The applicant Sachin Kumar is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 109, Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Case Crime No.1117 of 2024, registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.

According to the prosecution, on 01.11.2024, the informant was coming his house from his shop. Three persons, who were on a bike, fired 5-6 shots at him. However, he did not receive any injury. Sachin Kumar (applicant) and Ankush (co-accused) were among the three persons who were on the said bike. After firing, all three fled from the spot. On 20.02.2025, a country made pistol of 315 bore and one live cartridge were recovered at the instance of the applicant.

Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, for the applicant contended that the applicant was not present on the spot. He was not involved in the said offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. As per the prosecution, the said country made pistol and the cartridge were recovered near the Government Degree College, Bhurna Road, Laksar and at that time the college was opened, but there was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. This fact also makes the story of the police doubtful.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant had surrendered before the concerned Magistrate. He has been in judicial custody for more than eight months, and, Ankush (co-accused) and the other co-accused Abhishek alias Goldi have already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court, Haridwar.

Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application.

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.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found 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.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Sachin 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.