Allowed

Sajid v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC16 Nov 2021BA1/2471/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an accused charged under Sections 392 and 411 IPC (Robbery and Theft), who alleged false implication and discrepancies in the FIR. The Court observed no independent witness and noted the trial would be time-consuming, ruling it fit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted on execution of a personal bond and furnishing of two reliable sureties.

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

¶1

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			BA1 No.2471 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. A.K. Sah, learned Dy.A.G. along with Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned B.H. for the State. Accused–Sajid has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.271/2021, u/s 392, 411 IPC, registered at P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; the accused was arrested on 11.07.2021 at 21:10; from his possession a piece of gold was recovered; the recovery of the gold was connected in the present crime, which was registered on 12.07.2021, which shows that the FIR was lodged on 12.07.2021 at 00:05 AM while in that case the crime number of present FIR was also mentioned, which is not possible; he is ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail. Admittedly, the accused has been enlarged on bail in Crime No.710 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC; in the present matter the accused was not named in the FIR; as per recovery memo a piece of gold was recovered from his possession; there is no independent witness of the recovery; the case is triable by the Magistrate; it will take time to conclude the trial; thus, without making any comment on the merits, it is a fit case for bail at this stage. The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) 16.11.2021 BS

Sajid v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Shankar Giri Vs State of Uttarakhand

Subhankar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kanti Ram Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Navin Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shamim Alias Bada Vs State of Uttarkahand