The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused implicated in an FIR under Sections 394, 506, 411, and 34 IPC of the CrPC, noting the co-accused had already been granted bail and emphasizing the applicant deserved bail at this stage.
Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties of equivalent 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.
| 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.442 of 2022 Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. A.K. Shah, learned A.G.A. for the State. Having been implicated in FIR/Case Crime No. 381 of 2021, under Sections 394, 506, 411 & 34 IPC, PS Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, the present bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the applicant is not named in the FIR; that no recovery from the possession of the applicant was made and the alleged recovery of Tamancha is false and planted one; that the alleged amount of Rs. 2,400/- shown as recovered from him has no connection with the alleged offence; that the applicant has one criminal history in his credit in which he is already bailed out; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.10.2021. Furthermore, he submitted that the co-accused, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court and the present applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Learned State Counsel although opposed the bail application and contended that the applicant has one criminal history in his credit, but admitted that he is already bailed out for the said pending case. He also admitted that the co-accused has already been granted bail and this ispurelya case ofparity. |
| Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without any comment on the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. |
|---|
| Consequently, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. |
| (N.S. Dhanik, J.) 04.04.2022 RV |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail at this stage considering the parity claim and circumstances.
Applicant
State
N.S. Dhanik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
