Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Jabir Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 500 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant who was in judicial custody under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to a case involving a gang dealing with vehicles, based on the finding that the applicant, a scrap dealer, had premises where vehicles were parked and there were no complaints from individual owners of the recovered trucks. The court found it fit for bail and ordered the applicant's release on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was in judicial custody in a case involving sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC related to a gang dealing with vehicles. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was arrested and many vehicles were recovered from his possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant, being a scrap dealer, had premises where vehicles were parked and there were no complaints from individual owners of the recovered trucks. The court concluded that it was a fit case for bail and ordered the applicant's release on bail.
Issues: The issues involved the applicant's alleged involvement in a case related to a gang dealing with vehicles, the ownership of the recovered trucks, and the suitability of bail in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of complaints from individual owners of the recovered trucks, the nature of the applicant's business as a scrap dealer, and the absence of evidence regarding the custody of the trucks by their owners.
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.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Jabir Ali is in judicial custody in FIR No. 344 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, police had information that a gang in the area is active, which deals with the vehicles. They would change the number of the vehicles and in collusion with the Traffic Officers would sell them at a high cost. When a raid was conducted, it is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was arrested and from his possession many vehicles were recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a scrap dealer. He has premises where vehicles are parked. There have been no complaints of any individual owner, whose trucks were allegedly recovered by the police.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the owners of the trucks were different persons. But, when the Court wanted to know as to whether the trucks are being given in the custody of the owners. Learned State Counsel would submit that still the trucks are in the police custody.
6. Learned State Counsel is also not in a position to tell as to whether the owners of any of the trucks recovered were ever informed by the police.
7. 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.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. 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.
The court considered the nature of the applicant's business, the absence of complaints from individual owners of the recovered trucks, and the lack of evidence regarding the custody of the trucks by ....
The court's discretion in granting bail based on the circumstances of the case and the applicant's 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.
Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to deny bail, especially when it establishes a clear connection between the accused and the crime.
The principle that bail should be granted in the absence of substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, particularly when the accused has been acquitted of related charges.
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
