Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Shakeel - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 254 of 2024
Decided On : 16-02-2024
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence against the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and had no recovery linked to him. The court highlighted the importance of not detaining individuals indefinitely without substantial evidence, leading to the decision to allow bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and attendance in court.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Shakeel, was in judicial custody under various sections of the IPC related to an attempted home invasion. He was not named in the FIR, had no evidence against him, and was not present at the scene.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had been falsely implicated, noting the absence of direct evidence and the fact that co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail. The court determined that there was no reason to keep the applicant in custody indefinitely.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the lack of evidence against him and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial necessitate granting bail when there is insufficient evidence to justify continued detention.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail subject to certain conditions.
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 First Information Report No.969 of 2022, registered at police station Laksar, District Haridwar.
2. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 398, 352, 452, 511 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. As per the First Information Report dated 07.10.2022, on 06.10.2022 at around 08:00 p.m., the informant’s daughter-in-law was going inside her house when 5 - 6 masked miscreants with weapons tried to enter her house. She quickly closed the door from inside.
4. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State.
5. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is not named in the First Information Report. He was not present at the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Application is a permanent resident of District Meerut, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is in custody since 20.10.2022, and, co-accused persons of similar role have already been granted bail by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application orally.
7. 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.
8. The Bail Application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant – Shakeel 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 :-
(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.
10. 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.
The court established that an individual cannot be detained without substantial evidence, and the right to bail is fundamental when the evidence against the accused is weak or non-existent.
The court established that bail can be granted even in serious cases if the applicant demonstrates a lack of direct involvement and if there are no substantial grounds for continued detention.
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 Constitution.
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 Constitution of India.
The main legal point established is that 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, no....
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 main legal principle established is that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and the purpose of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is to secure their att....
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, meant to secure the attendance of the accused, not as punishment.
Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. The purpose of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is to secure their attendance, not punishment.
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
