Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Harish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since all the bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Applicants Harish Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Arshdeep are in judicial custody in Case Crime No.194 of 2024, under Section 143 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station- Transit Camp, District- Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, police raided a premises on 21.07.2024, which was used as a brothel and the applicants were customer there.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that no offence is made out against the applicants; the applicants were not running any brothel; the applicants were surviving on the income from the prostitution.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that when raid was conducted, the applicants were apprehended as customers.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail applications are allowed.
9. Let the applicant
Bail can be granted in cases where allegations made against accused are not supported by any evidence.
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's decision was primarily based on the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner despite the gravity of the offence and the presence of specific allegations against accused No.2.
Bail granted when evidence insufficient for conviction and custody unjustified.
The principle of parity in granting bail based on the similarity of roles with co-accused.
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
The court considered the similar bail granted to co-accused and the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, in granting bail to the applicant.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; considerations for granting bail include nature of accusations and absence of past criminal record.
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
