Bail applications should not be denied based solely on unproven allegations or inadequate findings from the lower court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length in both the bail applications by submitting that both the applicants are the students and pursuing their studies and have been falsely implicated in the FIR lodged on 23.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0058 of 2025 P.S. Premnagar, District Dehradun.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat gives reference of various provisions of the IT Act as well the Evidence Act. First of all, he gives reference of Section 2(t) and Section 79(A) of the IT Act and submits that only on the basis of CCTV footages the bail cannot be denied to the applicants. He submits that while rejecting bail application the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that CCTV footages are not only the piece of evidence for rejecting the bail application and as such the learned court below committed a manifest illegality while rejecting the bail application.

3. Apart from this, he also gives the reference of Section 63(2) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides admissibility electronic records and therefore the learned court below while rejecting the bail application also committed a manifest illegality by rejecting the bail application based on CCTV footages. He submits that the allegations as alleged appears to be a prima-facie allegation and, therefore, while rejecting the bail application the learned court below should not record any finding to this effect particularly when the investigation is still going on and the charge sheet has not been filed. He submits that the bail is the rule and jail is an exception and as such the applicants’ right to liberty as protected by the Constitution of India cannot be taken away by rejecting the bail application.

4. He submits that the findings as recorded by the learned court below while rejecting the bail application is based on surmises and conjectures and while deciding the bail application the learned Magistrate only should take into consideration whether the ingredients are fulfilled for constituting the offence and based on the prima-facie allegations at the most presumption can be drawn but while rejecting the bail the finding should not be recorded.

5. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant have no previous criminal history and is a student of B.Com and is languishing in jail since last 52 days. He further submits that from the allegation as alleged in the FIR the implication of the applicant appears to be a case of malicious prosecution since the FIR gives a reference of the earlier incident.

6. The arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned court below while rejecting the bail application in fact draw a finding in paragraph 8.

7. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge it appears that while rejecting the bail application the findings has not been recorded rather only the submission as advanced by the parties were taken into consideration. What important aspect has to be seen while considering the bail application, it has been very carefully dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in it’s order. Therefore, the arguments as advanced that the learned court below while rejecting the bail application draw a finding is outrightly rejected.

8. Learned State counsel place before this court the written instructions and I have also gone through with the same, however, the fact whether the applicant have a criminal history there is no statement except that the same is under scrutiny.

9. Apart from this, learned A.G.A. apprise to this court that the investigation is still going on and if at this stage the applicant is enlarged on b