Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 159 (UTT)

Priya Ranjan v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-02

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.356 of 2019, registered with Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. An FIR was lodged by the informant-Islam Ahmad Warsi on 25.05.2019 with the allegations that he was retired Government Employee and after retirement, he received post retiral benefits. On 20.05.2015, he received a phone call from an unknown person that if he will invest the amount in Coal India Advantage, he would get benefit of Rs. 60.00 lakhs. On such invitation, he invested Rs. 23,34,000/- from 20.04.2016 to 05.07.2017. Thereafter, he came to know that fraud had been committed with him and he was cheated. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant, who is facing trial, submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he had not committed alleged offence; he had been falsely implicated; he neither called nor proposed for investing money; the applicant is not named in the FIR; FIR was lodged after more than one year; he had been implicated in the present case on the ground that Rs. 7.00 lakhs was deposited by the informant in the bank account of applicants firm M/s. Nexubs IT Solution, whereas the applicant had not received any amount from the informant; he had not managed any such firm; he was merely doing a private job in Delhi; he is in custody since 31.08.2019; he has no criminal history. 5. The Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that during the investigation, the involvement of the applicant in commission of the said crime is found, however, the learned State counsel fairly concedes that the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is not named in the FIR and he is in custody since 31.08.2019. 6. In determining whether to grant bail, the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration, the maximum punishment of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. 7. The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. 6. In determining whether to grant bail, the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration, the maximum punishment of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. 7. The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Honble Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits 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 be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions: (i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly. (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court. 12. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move the court for cancellation of the bail.