In a bail application under Section 431 CrPC, the High Court of Uttarakhand rejected the plea for release of an accused who was a bank director involved in fraud, despite a prior Supreme Court ruling that charge sheets are sometimes not material for bail.
Court not inclined to grant bail; application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Original Jurisdiction
Dated: Nainital: the 1st day of December 2012 First Bail Application No. 765 of 2012
Criminal Side
Manoj Kumar, S/o Sri Chander Singh R/o Bharat Nagar near Gayatri School Bhiwani Haryana
……...Applicant ( in Jail)
Versus
…..….Opposite Party
Arising out of Crime No. 322 of 2007 Under Section: 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 201, 120B IPC P.S. Gangneher Roorkee District Hardwar
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate, present for the applicant.
Mr. M.A. Khan, AG.A., present for the State.
Heard.
2
IPC, registered at Police Station Gangneher Roorkee, District Hardwar, has sought his release on bail.
3
(Miscellaneous application no. 4772 of 2012, stands disposed of).
Parul
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 01.12.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who is a director of the bank and implicated in fraud.
Whether the charge sheet filing case law applies to grant bail in these circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Chandra vs. C.B.I.Referred¶25
Sanjay Chandra vs. C.B.I. decided on 23.11.2011
Manoj Kumar
State of Uttarakhand
S.H.O. Gangneher Roorkee
C.M. Arora
Prafulla C. Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
