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
15 paragraphs · 278 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2024, under Sections 380, 411, 457 IPC, Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, a theft was committed in the house of the informant in the intervening night of 13-14.04.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a false case; the applicant has been falsely implicated; the co-accused has named him.
State was required to file objection, but it has not been filed.
Learned State counsel would submit that the investigation is still underway.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that this is a case fit for anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation.
(ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court.
(iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the AO. The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case, the applicant does not have passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the AO.
(v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above.