Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 79
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Malkhan Singh Saini - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 198 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
Headnote
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant, who was in judicial custody under Sections 379 & 411 IPC, on the grounds that he was not named in the FIR, had no previous conviction, and nothing was recovered from him.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was in judicial custody in a case under Sections 379 & 411 IPC and sought release on bail. The court heard arguments from both parties and considered the record before granting bail to the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail and deserved to be released based on the arguments presented and the record.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite being in judicial custody under Sections 379 & 411 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR, had no previous conviction, and nothing was recovered from him, leading to the conclusion that he was entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Shariq Khurshid, Advocate, J.S. Virk, Advocate, P.S. Uniyal, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Malkhan Singh Saini is in judicial custody in FIR No.570 of 2022, under Sections 379 & 411 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant appeared through video conferencing.
3. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR; he has falsely been implicated; nothing was recovered from the applicant; applicant was also involved in three cases in the past, but he has already been on bail in those matters and he is not a previous convict.
4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the bail rejection order does not reveal any previous conviction of the applicant.
5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
6. The bail application is allowed.
7. 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.
