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) 529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Javed - Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 71 of 2024
Decided On : 11-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Brief Holder.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, emphasizing the applicant's lack of prior convictions, the absence of direct evidence linking him to the crime, and the fact that co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail. The court highlighted the importance of not keeping the applicant in custody indefinitely without sufficient grounds, thus allowing bail while imposing conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, Javed, was in judicial custody for serious charges including attempted murder and conspiracy, following an incident where police constables were shot at by unknown assailants. The applicant was not named in the initial FIR but was implicated through confessions of co-accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant had been falsely implicated, had no prior convictions, and was a permanent resident, reducing the risk of absconding. The court noted that a charge-sheet had been filed and that co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the serious charges against him and the circumstances of his involvement in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the applicant's continued detention was not justified given the lack of direct evidence against him, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the precedent of granting bail to co-accused.

Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail under specific conditions to ensure his presence at trial and prevent interference with the case.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Present 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.991 of 2022, registered at Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. Present applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 307, 332, 333, 336, 353, 420, 398 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Constable Surendra Sharma, was present with Constable Pancham Prakash in the area of his police station. They received an information that some unknown persons were roaming near Durga Mandir over bridge, Laksar. Three suspicious persons were seen at around 17:15 hrs. on 16.10.2022. An attempt was made to interrogate them. One of them opened fire at them. Meanwhile, two unknown persons reached the spot. Constable Pancham Prakash had received gunshot injury on his leg. All the said five persons managed to escape from the spot. The First Information Report was registered against the unknown persons. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

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, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is an innocent person. He was not named in the First Information Report. The name of the present applicant came to light in the confessional statements of the co-accused - Naushad. Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. Applicant is not a previous convict. He is in custody since 19.07.2023. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Co-accused persons of similar role have already been granted bail by this Court, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.

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 – Javed 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:-

    (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.

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.

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