Deepak vs State of Uttarakhand - 2023 Supreme(UK) 40

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2023 Supreme(UK) 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Deepak - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 156 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Important Points

The consideration of the status of co-accused in similar roles in determining the eligibility for bail.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail Applications

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.147, S.148, S.149, S.323, S.308, S.452, S.504, S.506

Headnote

Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant based on the consideration that the co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail, indicating a case fit for bail and the applicant deserving to be enlarged on bail.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought release on bail in a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code while being in judicial custody.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail, leading to the decision that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Issues: Bail application in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, 452, 504, 506 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The consideration that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.

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.

Advocates appeared:
Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Sonika Khulbe, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Deepak is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.753 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is argued that the co-accused having similar role have already been granted bail.

4. This fact is admitted by the learned State counsel.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and 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.