Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Chandrapal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1983, 2077 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2023
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicants, Chandrapal and Nekpal, who were in judicial custody under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the similarity of their roles to the co-accused who had already been granted bail and deemed it fit for bail, allowing their release on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing sureties.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, Chandrapal and Nekpal, were in judicial custody under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. They sought their release on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail and deemed it fit for the applicants to be granted bail.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The similarity of the applicants' roles to the co-accused who had been granted bail influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the applicants.
Final Decision: The bail applications were allowed, and the applicants were to be released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing sureties.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Since both these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order.
2. Applicants-Chandrapal and Nekpal are in judicial custody in FIR No. 140 of 2022. Applicant-Chandrapal is in custody under Sections 395, 397, 412 & 34 IPC and applicant-Nekpal is in custody under Sections 395, 397 & 34 IPC, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar They have sought their release on bail.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-Chandrapal through Video Conferencing and perused the record.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant-Chandrapal and learned counsel for the applicant-Nekpal would submit that the co-accused having similar role has already been granted bail by this Court.
5. This fact is not disputed by learned State Counsel.
6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
7. The bail applications are allowed.
8. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one them to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
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 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 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 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 principle of parity in granting bail based on the similarity of roles with co-accused.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the similarity of allegations with co-accused whose bail applications were accepted and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits 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
