Pranav Kumar Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The Applicant- Pranav Kumar Saini is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 310(2), 61(2), Section 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959, in Case Crime No. 41 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

According to the respondent, some unknown persons looted jewelery, cash and two-three mobile phones from the informant’s house at about 7:34 p.m. on 06.02.2025. The First Information Report was registered on 07.02.2025. A country made pistol used in the offence and looted ear tops were recovered from the possession of the applicant on 02.09.2025.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, submitted that the co-accused Anshul Saini was arrested. The name of the present applicant has come to light in the statement of the co-accused Anshul Saini. Applicant was not involved in the said offence. Nothing was recovered from his possession. The alleged recoveries are planted. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Co-accused Anshul Saini has already been granted regular bail by this Court on 13.08.2025, and, applicant is in judicial custody since 25.08.2025.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application.

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 investigation 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, no reason is found to keep the applicant 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 applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Pranav Kumar Saini 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.