Farman vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Applicant Farman, who is in judicial custody in FIR No. 15 of 2023 dated 08.01.2023 under Sections 395, 397, 411 & 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

Learned counsel for the applicant/accused would submit that the applicant/accused is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the instant crime by the police; that, the applicant/accused is languishing in jail since 09.01.2023; that, the applicant/accuse is not named in the F.I.R. and he has no concern with the alleged incident therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant/accused in jail as the trial is likely to take considerable time.

He would further submit that approximately 7 witnesses have been examined in the trial court and none of the witnesses has identified the applicant/accused in the trial court; that, the witnesses have simply stated that there were few persons, who had come in the factory tied and beat them, but because of the darkness, they could not identify them.

He would further submit that the PW7 Amit Kumar was the witness, who participated in the Test Identification Parade but when he came in the cross-examination, he has unequivocally stated that before test identification of the accused persons only on the basis of that photograph being shown by the Investigating Officer he could identify the accused persons; that, even in the later part of the cross-examination, he said that he cannot recognize the accused persons.

Per Contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the applicant/accused, however, would fairly concede that none of the prosecution witnesses has examined till date, did identify any of the accused persons; that, PW7 Amit Kumar stated in the trial court that he could identify the accused persons in test identification parade only on the basis of photograph being shown prior to the test identification and he further stated that he could not identify the accused persons even on that day when his statement was recorded in the trial court.

In the circumspection of facts as stated above, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a case fit for bail.

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs.70,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.