Sunil Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R.

No.0203 of 2020, registered with Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 365 & 367 of I.P.C.

On 11.08.2020, at 20.05 hrs., an FIR was lodged by the informant Islamuddin that the informant had a welding shop in the name of Raja Fabrication. One Daya Kishan was working there along with him. Daya Kishan had a dispute regarding money with the co-accused persons, who used to come to his shop and threaten Daya Kishan by saying that if he does not pay, then they will beat him and kidnap him. On 11.08.2020 at 17.40 hrs, the co-accused persons came to his shop and took Daya Kishan forcefully in an Innova Car. On the same day, i.e. 11.08.2020, Daya Kishan was recovered from the possession of the present applicant and co-accused persons.

Heard Mr. Rashid Hussain, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, the learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he is not named in the FIR; during the course of the investigation, the name of the applicant came into light in the statement of the co-accused persons; the alleged recovery is false; two co-accused person of identical role have been granted bail by this Court; he is in judicial custody since 12.08.2020; he has no criminal history and charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, the learned A.G.A., appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that 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 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 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.