Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Sachin Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
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 g
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
