SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(UK) 468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravi Malimath, J.
Wasim - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1999 of 2020
Decided On : 28-11-2020

Advocates Appeared:
S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, J.S. Virk, Advocate

The court's decision to grant bail was based on the perception that the case was a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense, and the lack of substantial material against the applicant.

Headnote:

Bail Application - Commercial Transaction - The court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the case appeared to be a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense, and there was no substantial material against the applicant. The court considered the maximum sentence prescribed for the offenses and the applicant's custody duration before granting bail.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was arrested in connection with a case involving the alleged theft of aluminum beams during transportation. The applicant moved a bail application after the dismissal of a previous application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bail should be granted as it appeared to be a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense, and there was no substantial material against the applicant. However, the court noted that these findings were prima facie and the applicant would have to face trial.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail in a case involving the alleged theft of aluminum beams during transportation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the view that the case appeared to be a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense, and there was no substantial material against the applicant. The court also considered the maximum sentence prescribed for the offenses and the applicant's custody duration.

Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was enlarged on bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. - The case of the prosecution is that the informant's company sold aluminum beam to their client's company at Bengal and transported the sold items through transporter Shri Niwasa Transporter on 15.09.2020 but the loaded item could not reach at the client's address till 25.09.2020. On the ground that driver, vehicle owner and transporter had stolen the loaded item, a complaint was lodged. The case was registered as case crime no. 300 of 2020 under Section 406, 407, 120-B, 411 IPC, police station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested. The applicant moved a bail application no. 1216 of 2020 before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was dismissed by order dated 09.10.2020. Hence, the present bail application.

2. Shri S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant, contends that it is purely a commercial transaction between the parties and it is not a criminal offence. Moreso, no material has been placed on record to indicate that the applicant has committed any offence, alleged against him.

3. The same is disputed by Shri J.S. Virk, learned deputy advocate general appearing on behalf of the State.

4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that the bail is required to be granted in this case. The maximum sentence prescribed for these offences is 7 years. The applicant is in custody since 29.09.2020. Moreover, it would appear on the face of record that it is a civil dispute between the parties and it is not a criminal offence.

5. Considering the material available on record, I'am of the considered view that there is no substantial material against the applicant. However, these are only prima facie findings, the applicant will have to face trial. The bail application is allowed. The applicant is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

i. The applicant will furnish a personal bond of rupees one lakh only and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

ii. He applicant will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

iii. He will cooperate with the investigation.

iv. He will mark his attendance before the police station SIDCUL, Haridwar on the first day of every month.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top