Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Kailash Sharma - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1027 of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mrs. Lata Negi, Brief Holder.

The main legal point established is that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance, not punishment.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - Regular bail granted to the accused under Sections 452, 323, 506, 354, 384, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed for regular bail in connection with a case involving allegations of molestation, blackmail, and forced marriage as per the First Information Report.
Finding of the Court:

The court, considering the submissions of both parties, granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and that the purpose of keeping the accused in detention is to secure their attendance during the trial, not punishment.
Issues: The issues involved the allegations made in the FIR, the support of the victim for the prosecution's case, and the criminal history of the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the applicant deserves bail at this stage without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case.
Final Decision: The Bail Application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail with specific conditions to attend the trial court regularly and not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, with a warning of potential prosecution if the conditions are misused or violated.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Present Application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 26 of 2022, registered at police station Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal. The First Information Report was lodged by the victim. FIR was registered under Sections 452, 323, 506, 354, 384, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”). Chargesheet was filed after completion of the investigation. Victim (PW1) has been examined. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 323, 354, 384, 376(1), 427, 452 and Section 506 IPC.

2. As per FIR dated 19.07.2022, informant/victim has two daughters, who are married. Applicant went to meet the informant in her room on 12.06.2021. He molested her and strangled her. Applicant again went to her room on 15.02.2022 and started molesting her saying that he had her objectionable photos. He has taken Rs. 3,00,000/- by blackmailing her. He again went to her room on 07.06.2022 and by showing a knife forced her to write on a plain paper that she is his wife.

3. Heard Mr. Anil Anthwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mrs. Lata Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

4. Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate, has submitted that all the allegations of the informant, aged about 44 years, are false. Applicant, aged about 32 years, is in custody since 04.08.2022. He is a permanent resident of District Tehri Garhwal. Therefore, there is no chance of his absconding, and, he has no criminal history.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. According to him, informant/victim (PW1) has supported the case of the prosecution.

6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8. The Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant – Kailash Sharma be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in t he like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon his, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of his bail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document