Naseem @ Munna & Others 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 in BAI No.731 of 2023. Delay is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Application made, therefor, stands disposed of.

Applicants Naseem @ Munna and Masroor, who are in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.44 of 2023, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, Police Station Jwalapur, 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 nothing has been recovered from the applicants/accused and there is no evidence whatsoever against the applicants/accused except that there is statement of co-accused Abdul Razak to the effect that he had given Rs.7,43,53,206/- to the present applicants/accused together.

The Investigating Officer is present before the Court. He admits that no police custody was requested by the trial court of the present applicants/accused for the recovery.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State opposed the bail application, however, she does not dispute the facts as stated by counsel for the applicant.

In view of the above, but, 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.