Vipin vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This Bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 157 of 2022, registered with Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 356, 411 and Section 34 of IPC.

Heard Mr. Alok Kumar, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

The learned counsel for the State submitted that according to the present matter, the present applicant had snatched a mobile from the informant and the said mobile was recovered from the possession of the present applicant.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he is falsely implicated in this matter; he has not named in the First Information Report, the said recovery is forged; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; he has no criminal history and he is in custody since 27.02.2022.

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 investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

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.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Vipin 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.