Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 208 (UTT)

Devendra Solanki v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-16

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.165 of 2019, registered with Police Station Cantt. Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419 & 420 of the I.P.C. 2. An FIR was lodged by one Manisha Akhare, Lt. Col., Recruiting Officer, Military Hospital, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun on 23.11.2019 with the averments that recruitment for Indian Navy was going on. In this process, medical examination of co-accused Dev Swaroop had to be conducted. Present applicant in place of co-accused Dev Swaroop was present along with medical review certificate and other documents and posed himself to be real Dev Swaroop. 3. Heard Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 4. The applicant is facing trial. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; co-accused is the friend of present applicant; therefore, the present applicant went with the co-accused for his medical examination; the applicant has no criminal history; he is in custody since 24.11.2019. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application; however, he concedes that the applicant has no criminal history. 6. In determining whether to grant bail, the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The punishment under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. 7. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. Bail is the rule and the 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 . 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 peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. 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 peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and in the light of 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 merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. 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 subject to the condition that the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly. 11. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates the condition imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move the court for cancellation of the bail.