Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 269 (UTT)

Rahish v. State Of Uttarakhand

2021-05-17

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2021
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.361 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 506 and 411 of the I.P.C. 2. An FIR was lodged by the informant Gaurav Kumar Rajput. According to the F.I.R., on 18.07.2020 at 02.05 hours, four person entered the house of the informant with knifes and under threat took away various articles from his house. The F.I.R. was registered at 18.40 hrs. on 19.07.2020, against the four unknown persons. On 29.07.2020, some articles were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Suhaib @ Babu at the instance of the applicant no.2 Babu and some articles were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Tahir on the pointing out of the applicant-accused Rahish, the applicant no.1. 3. Heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Lalit Miglani and Ms. Lata Negi, learned Brief Holders for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent; they have been falsely implicated in the instant crime; the alleged recovery memo was prepared on the public place, but, no independent witness was secured; no test identification parade was conducted; the co-accused Suhaib @Babu and Tahir have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history; they are in judicial custody since 29.07.2020; charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with evidence. 5. Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the co-accused Suhaib@Babu and Tahir have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the applicants have no criminal history. 6. 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. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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 applicants 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 applicants deserve bail at this stage. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicants be released on bail on their executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :- i) The applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 10. It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.