High CourtsSingle Bench

Ujjawal Goswami vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 28 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 UK CK 0159

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 419, 420, 504, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1853 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

14 paragraphs · 459 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 Case Crime No. 12 of 2020, registered at police station Kankhal, District Haridwar under Sections 419, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.

As per the FIR, informant and his wife met the applicant on 25.11.2019. Applicant introduced himself as Sub-Inspector, Excise Department. After one day or two, in the name of providing a job to the daughter of the informant, he took Rs. 80,000/- and a laptop from the wife of the informant.

3.

Heard Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

4.

Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, submits that the applicant was released on interim bail on 30.03.2020 for a period of six months. Due to Pandemic, his interim bail was extended time to time. However, after expiry of the period of interim bail, he did not surrender before the concerned Court. Therefore, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him.

5.

Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He was in judicial custody in another case and due to the said reason, he could not appear before the concerned Court. Charge-sheet was filed on 12.03.2020. Therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and, he is in judicial custody since 02.09.2022.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.

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 – Ujjawal Goswami 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.

iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

10.

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