Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Kartik – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Kartik is in judicial custody in FIR No. 1093 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 352 IPC, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co-accused Harsh Chauhan and Rishi Parihar, who were arrested from the spot and from whom some firearms were allegedly recovered have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. It is also argued that the co-accused Anshul Yadav, whose role is similar to that of the applicant has also been granted bail by the Sessions Court.
4. At the time of hearing of the bail application, bail orders of co-accused Anshul Yadav, Harsh Chauhan and Rishi Parihar have been tendered by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
5. Learned State counsel admits it.
6. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount,
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 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 principle of parity in granting bail based on the similarity of roles with co-accused.
The court may grant bail after considering factors such as the nature of the case, the co-accused's bail status, and the applicant's criminal record.
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the entirety of facts and the lack of substantial evidence against the applicant in granting bail.
The court considered the lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged offenses and his lack of previous conviction as grounds for granting bail.
The court established that prolonged custody without trial and lack of witness examination can warrant the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
The court considered the applicant's previous bail grants and the release of the co-accused in the instant case as factors warranting the grant of bail under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activi....
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
