Back
ALOK KUMAR VERMA
Vijay Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
These two Bail Applications have been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.223 of 2021, registered at police station Doiwala, District Dehradun. Applicants are in judicial custody under Sections 120B, 201, 302 and Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).
2. These two bail applications have arisen from one case crime number i.e. Case Crime No.223 of 2021, therefore, these two bail applications are being considered and decided by this common order. Record of the BA1 No.1391 of 2022 will be leading file.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, informant Pareshwar Prasad Sharma’s uncle Shubhash Chandra Sharma, aged about 62 years, went for a walk as usual on 30.08.2021 at around 5-6 hrs. At that time, he had Mobile Phone Number 7818998486 and Mobile Phone Number 9756263711, which were switched off. Therefore, a missing report was registered under Section 365 IPC on 11.09.2021.
4. On the information of Virendra Kumar, Forest Beat Officer, a naked decomposed dead body was recovered from the bushes on 14.09.2021. Inquest proceeding of the recovered dead body of unknown person, aged about 55-60 was conducted on
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the decision to grant bail is influenced by the evidence, including the lack of co....
The court established that the grant of bail can be justified when the accused has no criminal history, the investigation is complete, and there is no substantial evidence indicating a risk of abscon....
Bail may be granted even in serious offenses if the evidence against the applicant is not compelling and other factors favor release.
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.
Judicial custody without direct evidence or naming in FIR is insufficient for bail denial; co-accused receiving bail influences decision.
The decision to grant bail was influenced by the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioners, and the anticipated trial timeline, without commenting on the case's merits.
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
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
