SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(UK) 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Praveen Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Second Bail Application No. 207 Of 2023
Decided On : 07-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.K. Chand, AGA.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is a right and should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, with the primary purpose of detention being to secure the accused's attendance at trial.

Headnote:

BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that bail is the rule and incarceration is the exception. The court interpreted the necessity of ensuring the accused's attendance at trial as the primary purpose of detention, rather than punishment. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to grant bail, as the applicant had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident, indicating low flight risk.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Praveen Kumar, was in judicial custody for serious offenses including murder and robbery. He was accused of stealing a tractor and causing the death of an individual during the incident. His first bail application was rejected, and he has been in custody since May 12, 2017.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant had been in custody for an extended period without a trial and that there were no substantial reasons to deny bail. The court noted the applicant's lack of criminal history and his permanent residency as factors favoring bail.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the serious nature of the charges and the time spent in custody without trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the presumption in favor of bail should prevail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The court highlighted that the purpose of detention is to ensure attendance at trial, not to punish the accused.

Result: The court allowed the second bail application, granting bail to the applicant under specific conditions to ensure compliance with the trial process.

JUDGMENT :

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) :

Present Second Bail 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. 132 of 2017, registered at police station Doiwala, District Dehradun.

2. Applicant is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 379 and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The First Bail Application (Bail Application No.1528 of 2017) was rejected on 26.06.2019.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the informant parked his tractor, bearing Registration No.UK14-6663, on 10.05.2017 at Dharmuchak Kanta and slept with his laborers. At around 12:30 in the night, they heard the sound of the tractor starting. They observed that the said tractor was being taken by the present applicant. He was chased by the laborers, upon which the present applicant crushed the laborers named Vijay Kumar and Ramshesh. Both the injured were sent to the hospital through 108 Ambulance. During the investigation, injured Vijay Kumar had died.

5. Heard Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.K. Chand, learned AGA for the State.

6. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is in judicial custody since 12.05.2017. An Application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed on behalf of the applicant – accused, is still pending before the trial court for disposal. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding.

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. Second Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant – Praveen Kumar 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 on 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, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top