IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

27^th MARCH, 2023

FOURTH BAIL APPLICATION No. 2 of 2023

Between:

Akram Ali

…Applicant

and

State of Uttarakhand.

..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar,

Advocate.

Counsel for the State/

: Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy

respondent

Advocate General with Ms.

Shivangi Gangwar, Brief

Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

This is the Fourth Bail Application. The First Bail

Application was rejected on 23.07.2018. The Second Bail

Application was rejected on 17.11.2021 and the Third Bail

Application was withdrawn on 10.02.2023. The present bail

application is being considered as more than one year has

been elapsed since the second bail application of the

applicant was rejected.

2.

Present Bail Application has been filed for grant of

regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 133 of 2014

registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun.

Applicant is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections

395, 396, 397 read with Section 34 and Section 412 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2

3.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the

applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate

General with Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for

the State.

4.

According to the First Information Report dated

10.09.2014, on 10.09.2014, five unknown persons fired upon

the son of the informant, killed him and looted cash along

with gold jewelery from the informant’s house. The

informant, his wife, his mother in-law and a tenant were also

injured.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

applicant has been implicated in this matter. The name of the

applicant is not there in the First Information Report. His

name has come in the statement of the co-accused –

Nadeem, from whom, a country made pistol and some

jewelery were recovered. The co-accused – Nadeem and

other co-accused persons have been granted bail. The alleged

recovery of some jewelery, from the possession of the

applicant was planted. There was no public witness at the

time of alleged recovery. Applicant is a permanent resident of

District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, there is no

likelihood of applicant absconding as well. He is in custody

since 07.03.2017, and, he is not convicted in any case.

6.

Objection to the bail application has not been filed

by the respondent even availing sufficient opportunity to file

the same. However, learned counsel for the State opposed

the said bail application orally and submitted that the

applicant was identified by the informant.

7.

Learned counsel for the State had sought time on

23.03.2023 and 24.03.2023 to take instruction from the

Investigating Officer regarding criminal history of the

applicant. Today, it is submitted by learned counsel for the

3

State that as per instruction received, applicant is not

convicted in any case.

8.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an

exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal

liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused

person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The

main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the

accused.

9.

Having considered the submissions of learned

counsel for both the parties and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, there is no reason 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.

10.

The Bail Application is allowed.

11.

Let the applicant Akram Ali be r