Arman vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.84 of 2020, registered with Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 365, 370(4) & 120-B of I.P.C.

An F.I.R. was lodged by the informant at 10.10 hrs. on 20.05.2020. According to the F.I.R., the informant, a resident of District Bareilly, came to his in-law's house with his wife and three children after Holi festival. On 19.05.2020, his daughter aged about seven months, had gone missing from the night. The informant came to know about her missing on the morning of 20.05.2020. He searched his daughter, but, she could not be traced out. The F.I.R. was registered against unknown person under Section 365 I.P.C. In the C.C.T.V. footage, a person was found roaming near the place of incident at around 3:25:03 hrs. The said person was visualized in the C.C.T.V. footage taking a child on his shoulder, which was covered by a white cloth. That man was wearing a red shirt. The name of that person is Arman Ali, the present applicant. The red shirt, which was wearing by the present applicant, while causing the incident, was recovered from his house. The informant's daughter was recovered from the house of the co-accused persons.

Heard Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ranjan Ghilidyal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Ms. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been implicated in this matter; the daughter of the informant was not recovered from his possession; he had not kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant; she was not recovered from his possession; there was no public witness at the time of the alleged recovery of the red shirt; no photograph of the alleged recovery has been filed by the State. She further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history; he is in custody since 25.05.2020; he is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence and two co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court.

Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, the learned A.G.A. for the state opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that the two co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court and the applicant has no criminal history.

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.

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, which may otherwise affect the outcome of the trial, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is allowed.

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 the following conditions :-

i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.