This bail application was allowed, directing the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties. The court noted arguments regarding false recovery and lack of prior conviction but disposed of the matter based on the overall fitness for bail.
Released 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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 663 of 2022
Rinku ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Shalini Thakral, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Rinku is in judicial custody in FIR No.209 of 2021, under Sections 380, 411, 34 IPC, Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2
recovered. It records that at the time of recovery the IMEI number were checked. Does it mean that the Police Officer had the details of the mobile which was stolen in the instant case? In fact, the FIR also does not record the IMEI number. Be it as it may.
court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.06.2022
Sanjay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who is a first-time accused in a theft case.
Whether the irregularities in recovery of mobile phone and absence of IMEI details are sufficient grounds for bail.
Rinku
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
