Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Amit Kumar Saini – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicant Amit Kumar Saini is in judicial custody in FIR No. 38 of 2021, under Section 307, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application allowed on the ground of parity on 28.01.2022 but it was rejected on 08.07.2022 in BAC No. 04.2022. The second bail application was rejected on merits on 24.03.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant had already been granted bail by this Court on 28.01.2022 as all the other co-accused had already been granted bail. But, it is argued that subsequently, on 08.07.2022, in BAC No. 04 of 2022, the bail of the applicant was cancelled. It is argued that thereafter, the informant has already been examined. The only evidence against the applicant is that it is he who planned to get the injured assaulted. It is argued that actual assaulters have already been granted bail. Reference has been made to the statement of PW1 Sandeep Kumar Saini, who is the informant.
5. Learned counsel for th
The court considered the lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged offenses and his lack of previous conviction as grounds for granting bail.
The court established that the nature of the relationship and the circumstances surrounding the allegations can influence the decision to grant bail, particularly when the victim supports the prosecu....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to life and liberty in granting bail to the accused.
In the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the crime, and where the prosecution's case relies on circumstantial evidence, bail may be granted.
Granting bail based on lack of specific allegation, absence of criminal history, and parity with co-accused.
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 granted bail to the applicant under IPC Sections 376 and 506, emphasizing the need for conditions to protect the informant and ensure trial integrity.
The court established that the identification of the accused and the nature of injuries are critical factors in bail considerations under IPC provisions.
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
