High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunil Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 UK CK 0116

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1175 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

9 paragraphs · 340 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.24 of 2023, registered at police station S.I.D.C.U.L., District Haridwar under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.

As per prosecution’s case, present applicant stabbed a knife in the stomach of the injured Anil Prasad on 13.01.2023 at about 21:15 hrs. First Information Report was registered at 22:40 hrs. on 13.01.2023 on a written information of the informant Sachin Pal. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution has examined the injured Anil Prasad (PW1).

3.

Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

4.

Learned Senior Advocate contended that applicant is an innocent person. He has been implicated in the present matter. Informant is not an eye witness. Injured has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has turned hostile. Applicant is in custody since 26.01.2023. He has no criminal history and he is a permanent resident of District Muzaffarnagar, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding.

5.

On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State, has opposed the bail application. However, he has conceded that the injured did not support the case of the prosecution.

6.

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.

7.

The Bail Application is allowed.

8.

Let the applicant – Sunil 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.