Allowed

Sunil Patel v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC15 Nov 2021BA1/2234/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nainital allowed bail to the applicant accused of rape under Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held there was no reason to keep the applicant in custody for an indefinite period and ordered his release on execution of a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Sunil Patel Vs State of Uttarakhand — Bail and Remand | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶3

15^TH NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2234 of 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sunil Patel …Applicant

¶7

and

¶8

State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kaushik and Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel.

¶9

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S. S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

¶10

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶11

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.130 of 2021, registered with Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 504 & 506 of I.P.C.

¶12

The informant/victim lodged an FIR on 26.05.2021. According to the FIR, the applicant is brotherin-law of the elder sister of the informant. Both the informant and the applicant met before the marriage of the elder sister of the informant. In the year, 2019, when the informant went to Khatima for attending the reception of the marriage of her elder sister, she was raped by the applicant. At that time, the applicant had said her that both of them would get married. Thereafter, the applicant

¶13

¶14

made physical relations with the informant at the house and in the hotel.

¶15

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

¶16

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated in this matter; in the light of the FIR, it is clear that the informant, a major lady, with her sweet will started living with the applicant, which reveals that no forceful relation was established by the applicant; the applicant opened a beauty salon in her partnership, for which the applicant had invested Rs.30,00,000/-; most of the amount of the said business was grabbed by the informant and when the applicant came to know about the same, then there was altercation between the informant and the applicant, and to avoid the litigation related to criminal breach of trust, the informant roped the applicant in the alleged crime; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; he has no criminal history; he is in custody since 23.07.2021; the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶17

Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶18

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused

¶19

¶20

person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

¶21

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant Sunil Patel be released on bail

¶24

on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶25

i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶26

ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

¶27

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.

¶28

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶29

Dt: 15^th November, 2021 Pant/

Sunil Patel v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Patel v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohan Kumar Saxena Vs State of Uttarakhand

Monu Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Brijesh Chandra Dobariyal Vs Smt. Laxmi Dhyani

Vikas Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sahid Vs State of Uttarakhand