Allowed

Saleem v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC18 Aug 2021BA3/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the third bail application of Saleem, who faced charges of robbery, criminal intimidation, and dishonestly receiving stolen property. The court held there was no reason to keep him in detention and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties with specific undertakings.

Saleem 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

THIRD BAIL APPLICATION NO.18 of 2021

¶4

18^th AUGUST, 2021

Between:

Saleem

…Applicant

and

State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar.

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. V. S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶13

This is the third bail application. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.09.2020 with liberty to file afresh bail application and the second bail application was rejected on 14.01.2021.

¶14

This third bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.361 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 506 and 411 of IPC.

¶15

According to the FIR, on 18.07.2020 at 02:05 hrs. four unknown persons entered the house of the informant Gaurav Kumar Rajput with knifes and under threat took away various articles from his house. The FIR was registered at 18:40 hrs. on 19.07.2020, against the four unknown persons. During the investigtion, some

¶16

¶17

looted articles were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Suhaib alias Babu at the instance of the coaccused Babu son of Bhurai Shai, some looted articles were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Tahir on the pointing out of the co-accused Rahish and some looted articles were recovered from the possession of the co-accused Anish at the instance of the present applicant.

¶18

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.S. Rathore, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶19

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; he is an innocent person; the alleged recovery memo was prepared on the public place, but, no independent witness was secured; no Test Identification Parade was conducted; the co-accused persons Suhaib @ Babu, Tahir, Rahish, Babu son of Bhurai Shai and Anish have been granted bail by this High Court; the applicant has no criminal history; he is in custody since 29.07.2020; the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶20

Mr. V.S. Rathore, the learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the co-accused persons of the identical role have been granted bail by this High Court and the applicant has no criminal history.

¶21

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal

¶22

¶23

liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

¶24

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.

¶25

9. The bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant Saleem be released on bail 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 :-

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶31

Dt: 18^th August, 2021 Pant/

Saleem v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem 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

Vinod Kumar Kuliyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sachin Kumar Bhati Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Raj Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohan Giri Vs State of Uttarakhand

Subhash Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kavita Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand