IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Ved Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Second Bail Application No. 385 of 2023, First Bail Application No. 1435 of 2023
Decided On : 13-05-2024
BAIL - PROPERTY DISPUTE - The court granted bail to the applicants involved in a property dispute, emphasizing the lack of injuries and the settled nature of the matter. The court highlighted the need for conditions to prevent interference with the informant and evidence tampering, reflecting a balanced approach to bail in serious allegations.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants Ved Prakash and Mukesh Sharma were in judicial custody for various IPC offenses related to a property sale dispute where they allegedly opened fire at the informant after a payment dispute arose.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that no injuries occurred during the incident and considered the applicants' claims of a settled matter, leading to the decision to grant bail with specific conditions.
Issues: Whether the applicants should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of injuries and the settled nature of the property dispute warranted bail, while imposing conditions to safeguard the informant and prevent evidence tampering.
Result: The bail applications were allowed, with the applicants required to execute a personal bond and provide sureties, along with conditions to avoid contact with the informant and tampering with evidence.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Since both these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Miscellaneous Application IA No. 5 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.
3. Applicants Ved Prakash and Mukesh Sharma are in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 462 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 420, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Jwalapur, District-Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Applicants, according to the FIR, sold a property to the informant for Rs.13.75 crores. After the sale, the applicants raised some disputes, due to which some payments were stopped by the informant. Subsequently, the matter was settled, but still the informant was not allowed to take possession of the property sold to him. The FIR records that the applicants and others opened indiscriminate fire, but somehow, the informant could save himself.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that it is a property dispute; the matter has already been settled; the applicants may be released on bail subject to the conditions, as may be imposed by the Court.
7. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant Ved Prakash is a convict; his appeal is pending in the court; his conduct is not as such, which may permit him the concession to bail; in this matter, short term bail was granted to the applicant-Ved Prakash, but he did not surrender within the stipulated time. It is only after the intervention of the informant that his custody could be secured again.
8. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned counsel for the informant.
9. The Court wanted to know as to whether any person was injured in the incident? It is stated that no person was injured.
10. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants should be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.
11. The bail applications are allowed.
12. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:
(ii) They shall not contact the informant, or any witness or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case.
(iii) They shall not tamper with the evidence.
The court established that changed circumstances and lack of evidence of threats can justify the granting of bail, even after previous cancellations.
The court determined that allegations of misappropriation reflected a civil dispute rather than criminal intent, allowing bail based on the absence of prior criminal history and ongoing civil complai....
Grant of Bail - Offence of Cheating - Bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of Constituti....
The court's discretion in granting bail based on the circumstances of the case and the applicant's eligibility for bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.