Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Himanshu Kashyap @ Jassi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2005, 1873, 2004 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
Headnote
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicants in a case involving charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after considering the similar bail granted to co-accused with a similar role.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought bail in a case involving charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 341, 504 and 506 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail, and therefore, the applicants deserved to be enlarged on bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants should be granted bail in light of the similar bail granted to co-accused with a similar role.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail, indicating that the case was fit for bail for the applicants.
Final Decision: The bail applications were allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them.
Vikas Anand, Advocate, Manju Bahuguna, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Mamta Joshi, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Since, all the above bail applications arise from the same FIR, these are being decided together by this common judgment.
2. Applicants Himanshu Kashyap @ Jassi, Sanjay Chauhan and Vivek Pargai are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.195 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 341, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It is argued that the co-accused having similar role have already been granted bail.
4. This fact is not disputed by the learned State counsel.
5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
6. The bail applications are allowed.
7. Let the applicants be released on bail, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
