IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Amit Kumar Saini - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Third Bail Application No. 99 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Bail - Judicial Custody - IPC Sections 307, 506, 120B - The court discussed the provisions of bail under IPC, emphasizing the importance of changed circumstances and the absence of threats in the informant's testimony, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail after being in judicial custody for charges under IPC Sections 307, 506, and 120B. Previous bail applications were rejected, with the last being on merits. The applicant argued that he was not the actual assaulter and that the informant had been examined.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the informant did not testify about being threatened by the applicant, and the actual assaulters had been granted bail. The court noted changed circumstances that warranted granting bail to the applicant.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the previous cancellations and the current evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of threats in the informant's testimony and the release of co-accused on bail constituted changed circumstances justifying the grant of bail.
Result: The bail application is allowed.
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 the informant would submit that the applicant has not complied with the direction of the Court earlier when his bail was cancelled. He did not surrender to custody. Coercive processes were issued against him. It is only thereafter, he surrendered before the Court. It is argued that the family members of the applicant are still causing harm to the family of the informant. There have been reports lodged against them. Learned counsel also submits that State also apprehends that if the applicant is released on bail, he may cause harm.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that as per instruction, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may cause harm.
7. The role assigned to the applicant is that it is he, who was instrumental in attacking the injured. The real assaulters have admittedly been granted bail. The bail of the applicant was cancelled on 08.07.2022, when the Court observed as follows:-
The applicant-informant has submitted an application to the concerned police station, on 03.02.2022, regarding the threat given by the accused-respondent no.2, which shows that the accused-respondent no.2 has misused the liberty granted to him.
In these circumstances, the bail cancellation application is liable to be allowed, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 28.01.2022 is, hereby, cancelled.
The concerned Court will take appropriate steps against the accused-respondent no.2.”
8. The bail of the applicant was rejected on two grounds as evident from above narration, namely; (i) that the date of custody was wrongly told to the Court and; (ii) He threatened the informant.
9. The informant has already been examined as PW1. He has not stated in his evidence that he had ever been threatened by the applicant.
10. It is true that after cancellation of his bail, the applicant did not surrender to custody and coercive steps were taken against him.
11. Having considered that one of the grounds of cancellation of bail i.e. related to threats to the informant, has not been told by the informant in his evidence and the fact that the informant is examined and also keeping in view the role of the applicant as well as the fact that the co-accused, who were actual assaulter have been granted bail, this Court is of the view that there are changed circumstances, which entitles the applicant to bail.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his execut
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.
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.