Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 168 (UTT)

Mohamad Sahrookh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-03

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. Heard Mr. Asif Ali and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Advocates for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 311 of 2019 registered with Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital for the offences punishable under Sections 392 read with 34 and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on 11.08.2019 against two co-accused persons. According to the F.I.R., in the evening of 11.08.2019 at Mandi Bye Pass Honda Tiraha, Police Station Haridwar, District Nainital, four persons demanded mobile from the informant. All the said four persons started marpeet with the informant and snatched Rs.15350/-, Aadhar Card of the informant, Pan Card and ATM of the ICICI Bank; after snatching these articles, they fled away towards the forest. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he had not committed this crime; the applicant has no criminal history; the applicant is in custody since 11.08.2019; the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court. 5. The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that Rs. 4000/- and A.T.M. card of the informant have been recovered from the applicant, however, the learned counsel for the State admits that the applicant has no criminal history and co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court. 6. 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. 7. Considering the 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. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. 7. Considering the 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. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. 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.