Sweta Tripathi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR/Crime No.197 of 2015, registered with Police Station

Dalanwala, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 386,420,467,468,470,471,472,120-B & 34 of the I.P.C.

An FIR was lodged by the informant on 25.08.2015 with the allegation that on 11.02.2015, four persons raided the house of the informant showing

themselves as Income Tax Officers and told the informant that penalty of Rs. 6.00 Crores would be imposed upon the informant and her sisters. They

demanded Rs. 60.00 lakhs to save the informant and her sisters and received Rs. 24.00 lakhs from them.

Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; she is not named in the FIR; the applicant is a woman of 29

years of age; she has no criminal history; she is in custody since 22.02.2020 and, three co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, she fairly concedes that the applicant has no criminal history;

three co-accused persons have been granted bail by this High Court and the case of the applicant is of parity.

The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative

according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, 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 her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the court concerned.