Shamim vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the Case Crime No.371 of 2022, registered at police station Doiwala, District Dehradun.

As per prosecution’s case, FIR was registered on 15.10.2022 against unknown persons, according to which, on 15.10.2022 at 12 o’clock, six persons entered the informant’s house. They tied up his wife and maids and looted the jewelry and money by threatening to kill them at the knife point and pistol. During the investigation, a total sum of Rs.48,300/- was recovered from the possession of the present applicant on 18.10.2022.

Present applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 395, 412, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, contended that applicant is an innocent person; nothing was recovered from his possession; the alleged recovery was planted; there was no public witness in the proceeding of the alleged recovery; applicant has no criminal history; co-accused Riyaz Ahmed of the similar role has been granted bail by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun; applicant is in custody since 18.10.2022, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that applicant has no criminal history.

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 submission 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 Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant - Shamim 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 with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

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

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