Sunil Kumar Kalra vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant- Sunil Kumar Kalra is in judicial custody in FIR No.189 of 2016, under Sections 121, 122, 420 IPC and Section 3/5/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station- Raipur, District- Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 27.11.2016, police raided a flat and recovered various firearms and articles, which are used to manufacture firearms, etc. A person namely Aditya Mehra was the occupant of the flat when raid was conducted. Aditya Mehra revealed that, in fact, Gurvinder Singh was the occupant of the flat, of which the occupant was the owner.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is neither the owner of the flat nor was a tenant of it. He has nothing to do with the flat; he has not committed any offence; the trial is pending for years together now.

The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to how it could be alleged that the applicant is tenant or owner of the flat, from where various articles were recovered? Learned State Counsel would submit that Aditya Mehra had revealed that the applicant is the owner of the flat.

Ownership is not such a task, which could not have been established. If A says that B is owner of a property, apart from oral statement, the ownership documents could have been placed before the Court. It is not placed. Even it is not stated that it is with the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, Aditya Mehra, who was the occupant at the time when the raid was conducted, has not been made a co-accused.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.