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 · 201 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant Vineet Kumar is in judicial custody in FIR No.259 of 2023, under Sections 420, 379, 411 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Mukhani, District- Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, the informant had parked his cars in the premises of Dhan Laxmi Enterprises, but, subsequently, those cars were taken away by the officials of the company.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that nothing was recovered from him; he has been falsely implicated; nothing was recovered from him.
Learned State Counsel, under instructions, would submit that, in fact, the stolen cars were recovered from the possession of the applicant and the co-accused, but she admits that the applicant is not a previous convict.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.