This court allowed the bail application of an applicant accused under IPC Sections 395, 397, 412, and 120B. The applicant sought release on grounds of parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail earlier.
Release on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each.
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 6th day of February, 2013 Ist Bail Application No. 104 of 2013
Order on the Bail Application:
CRIMINAL SIDE
Mohd. Mohsin Salmani …… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party Arising out of FIR No. 228 / 2012 Under Sections: 395, 397, 412, 120B of IPC Police Station: Haldwani District: Nainital.
Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
Ms. Nishat Intezar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the respondent State.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State.
An FIR was lodged by one Nakul Agarwal against seven unknown people on 15.06.2012 in police station Haldwani as regards offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 of IPC. The sum and substance of FIR is that some unknown people, who were armed with country made pistols, looted the jewellery shop of the informant, committed marpeet , inflicted injury on the arm of the brother of the informant and fled away. A country made pistol, two cartridges and three mangalsutras were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the present applicant on 27.06.2012. The applicant was arrested on the same day and is in jail since then.
2
Whereas learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the bail, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the present applicant was not named in the FIR and he has not been put to the Test Identification Parade despite a lapse of seven months since his arrest. The looted and recovered property was also not put up for identification. Recovery was made after 13 days of the incident. The incident took place in densely populated area, but no independent witness was procured to evidence the alleged recovery. The accusedapplicant has no previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the accused is ready to furnish local sureties if he is enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant placed a copy of the order passed by this Court on 12.12.2012 to show that similarly situate co-accused Smt. Fareen was granted bail earlier and present accused-applicant Mohd. Mohsin Salmani is entitled to bail on the ground of parity coupled with other attenuating circumstances.
In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, a case of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant on the ground of parity.
The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Mohd. Mohsin Salmani be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.
Dt. February 06, 2013. Negi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of parity with a similarly situated co-accused and absence of material for identification?
Whether the circumstances of the case make out a case for bail?
Mohd. Mohsin Salmani
State of Uttarakhand
U.C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
