JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

This Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 991 of 2022, registered at police station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 307, 332, 333, 336, 353, 420, 398 & Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. According to the First Information Report dated 16.10.2022, Constable Surendra Sharma, informant, was present with another Constable Pancham Prakash in the area of his police station. They received information that some unknown persons were roaming near Durga Mandir over bridge, Laksar. Three suspicious persons were seen at round 17:15 hrs on 16.10.2022. An attempt was made to interrogate them. One of them opened fire at them. Meanwhile, two unknown persons reached the spot. Constable Pancham Prakash had received gunshot injury on his leg in the said incident. All the said five persons managed to escape from the spot. The First Information Report was registered against the unknown persons.

4. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.

5. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, submitted that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. The name of the present applicant came to light in the confessional statement of the co-accused. Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. Applicant is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Meerut (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. He is in custody since 26.10.2022. The charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, three co-accused persons of the similar role have been granted bail by this Court.

6. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. appearing for the State, has opposed the bail application. However, he has submitted that the name of the present applicant came to light in the confessional statement of the co-accused Shakeel and as per the evidence, received during the investigation, fire was not opened by the present applicant.

7. 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.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found 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.

9. The Bail Application is allowed.

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

(i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall 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.

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