Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Himanshu Kashyap @ Jassi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
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.
The court considered the bail granted to co-accused with a similar role as a significant factor in deciding to grant bail to the applicants.
The court considered the similarity of the applicants' roles to the co-accused who had been granted bail as a key factor in granting bail to the applicants.
The significance of the Test Identification Parade is diminished if proper procedures regarding the identification of the accused are not followed, particularly concerning their being kept baparda.
The principle of parity in granting bail based on the similarity of roles with co-accused.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the charge-sheet is filed, co-accused have been granted bail, and the trial is likely to be prolonged.
The consideration of the status of co-accused in similar roles in determining the eligibility for bail.
The court established that mere presence as a customer in a brothel does not constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
The court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
