Murtza And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Since the controversy involved in these two bail applications is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these applications are being disposed of this common order.

Delay Condonation Application being IA No.1/2023 has been filed by the State for condoning the delay in filing the counter affidavit. Delay is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Application made, therefor, stands disposed of.

Applicants Murtza, Shoaib and Saqib, who are in judicial custody in Case Crime No.1308 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Laksar, District Haridwar, have sought their release on bail.

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

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants/accused are in judicial custody since 31.12.2022 and the charge sheet has already been filed. He would further submit that there is only oral evidence of the victims against the applicants/accused and no case for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is made out. He would further submit that the recovery of the alleged appointment letters from the residences of accused persons is doubtful.

Per contra, Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Brief Holder for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicants are behind the bars since 31.12.2022 and that charge sheet has been filed in the case.

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

Bail applications are, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicants be released on furnishing bail bonds with two sureties, by each one of them, in the amount of ₹ 50,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.