Single judge allowed bail to the applicant, Sachin Tomar, holding criminally active for offences under IPC. The court granted relief based on parity with co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, without deciding final merits of the case.
Applicant enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of like amount.
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.
BAI No.1125 of 2019
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, leaned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, learned counsel for complainant. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant- Sachin Tomar has sought his release on bail in connection with Crime No. 251 of 2018, u/s 302/34/120B/201 of IPC, registered at P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and no offence is made out against him. Apart from that the prosecution has adduced two witnesses, but they did not support the prosecution story. As per the FIR there is only one eye witness at the spot and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he also did not support the prosecution story as alleged in the FIR. Apart from that as per the investigation eye witness Dinesh Baliyan was present at the spot and his statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O., but he did not support the prosecution story. Apart from that co-accused, namely, Ajeet Singh and Anuj Tomar have been enlarged in bail by this Court; on the ground of parity the present applicant is also entitled for bail. It is further argued that there is no recovery from the possession of the present applicant, he is languishing in jail since 18.09.2018; there is no criminal history.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail, but admitted that during investigation no
weapon was recovered from the possession of the present accused. It is also argued that in CCTV Footage the accused was seen, but admitted that the eye witness Dinesh Baliyan stated in his statement before the I.O. that he did not see the incident and another star witness Mohit Tomar whose statement has been adduced before the trial court, fails to support the prosecution story.
Without making any comment as to the final merits of the case and on the ground of parity, I am of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed.
Let the applicant- Sachin Tomar be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 19.11.2019
Balwant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant based on parity with co-accused enlarged on bail.
Sachin Tomar
State
R.C. Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
