Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Sachin Kumar - Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1988, 1982, 1985 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2024
BAIL - BAIL APPLICATIONS - The court analyzed the bail applications of the applicants, who were in judicial custody under various IPC sections and the Arms Act. The court highlighted the significance of the Test Identification Parade and the lack of proper documentation regarding the applicants being kept baparda. The decision to grant bail was influenced by the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail, leading the court to conclude that the applicants also deserved bail.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants Sachin Kumar, Ankit Kumar, and Vipin Kumar are in judicial custody under FIR No.124 of 2023 for various offenses including robbery and arms-related charges. They sought bail after their applications were rejected by the lower court, which cited identification during a Test Identification Parade as a reason for denial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Test Identification Parade's significance was undermined by the lack of evidence that the applicants were kept baparda, as there was no mention of this in the remand sheet. The court noted that co-accused had been granted bail, which supported the applicants' case for bail.
Issues: Whether the applicants should be granted bail despite being identified during the Test Identification Parade and the implications of their being kept baparda.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of proper documentation regarding the applicants being kept baparda and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail were sufficient grounds to allow the bail applications.
Result: The bail applications were allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since all these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Applicants Sachin Kumar and Ankit Kumar are in judicial custody in FIR No.124 of 2023, under Sections 395, 452, 342, 412, and 35 IPC, whereas, applicant Vipin Kumar is in judicial custody in FIR No.124 of 2023, under Sections 395, 452, 342, 412, and 35 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Nehru Colony, District- Dehradun. They have sought their release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that co-accused have already been granted bail; the bail applications of the applicants have been rejected by the court below on the ground that they were identified during Test Identification Parade. He would submit that the Test Identification Parade has no significance because the applicants were not kept baparda.
5. The Court had required learned State Counsel to get instructions in the matter. He would submit that, as per instructions, the applicants were kept baparda. The Court had, in fact, required learned State Counsel to get instructions as to whether the factum of keeping the applicants baparda is recorded in the remand sheet. Learned State Counsel would submit that in the remand sheet, there is no mention of the applicants being kept baparda.
6. Admittedly, co-accused have already been granted bail.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail applications are allowed.
9. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
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 considered the similarity of the applicants' roles to the co-accused who had been granted bail as a key factor in granting bail to the applicants.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the charge-sheet is filed, co-accused have been granted bail, and the trial is likely to be prolonged.
The court established that prolonged judicial custody without trial, along with the filing of a charge-sheet, can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the totality of circumstances, including lack of evidence and the potential length of trial, justifies such a decision.
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 decision to grant bail was based on the similarity of the petitioner's case to that of the co-accused who had already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of the Court.
The court granted bail to the applicants, emphasizing that continued custody was unnecessary due to completed investigation and similar treatment of co-accused.
The court's decision was influenced by the similarity of the petitioner's case to the co-accused who had been granted bail and the absence of recovery of contraband from the petitioner's possession, ....
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
