Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Vajahat @ Bhura and Another - Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 260 of 2024
Decided On : 22-03-2024
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, considering the lack of recovery from them and the fact that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail. The court emphasized the need for cooperation with the investigation and imposed conditions to ensure compliance and prevent flight risk.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought anticipatory bail in a case involving the recovery of materials for manufacturing firecrackers, where a co-accused had already been granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail, as no recovery was made from them and co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail.
Issues: Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of recovery from the applicants and the granting of bail to co-accused with similar roles justified the granting of anticipatory bail.
Result: The anticipatory bail application was allowed, subject to conditions regarding cooperation with the investigation and restrictions on travel.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicants- Vajahat @ Bhura and Mohd. Nadeem seek anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0476 of 2022, under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 11.05.2022, police recovered some articles for manufacturing fire crackers. A person was arrested. He had revealed that it is the applicant, who also managed to escape from the place of occurrence.
4. It is the case of the applicants that co-accused, having similar role, has already been granted regular bail; nothing was recovered from them.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that no formal objection is required to be filed, as such. The anticipatory bail application may be decided based on the material available on record. He would admit that co-accused, having similar role, has already been granted regular bail.
6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.
7. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
8. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicants shall also comply with the following conditions:-
(ii) The applicants shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever.
(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.
(iv) The applicants shall deposit their passport with the AO. The passports may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicants do not have passport, they shall give an undertaking to that effect to the AO.
(v) The applicants shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when there is no recovery from the applicants and co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, provided conditions are imposed to ensure compliance with the ....
The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, emphasizing the need for cooperation with the investigation and restrictions on witness contact.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against the applicant, provided they agree to cooperate with the investigation and comply with specifi....
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced at the bar.
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments presented.
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations and the circumstances of the case, including the status of co-accused.
Grant of anticipatory bail based on the consideration of false allegations and the existence of a dispute between the parties.
Anticipatory bail denied due to prior criminal cases and recent FIR registration.
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
