Third bail application allowed. Court held it is a fit case for bail as evidence recorded and accused cleared involvement via money refund. Directed personal bond and two sureties.
Accused allowed bail; directed to execute personal bond and furnish two sureties.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BA3 No.2 of 2022 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mr. S.K. Shandilya and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned B.H. for the State. Ms. Lata Negi, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent. This is the third bail application moved on behalf of the accused–Abdul Samad, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.85 of 2021 u/s 386 and 120B IPC, registered at P.S. SIDCUL, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. The first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2021 while the second bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.07.2021. It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 09.02.2021; the FIR was lodged after nine months of the incident; the accused was not directly involved in the crime; he did not make any ransom call to the informant and his brother; although he received Rs.4,00,000/- in his account but he immediately transferred it to co-accused - Salman; apart from that he has already refunded the entire amount to the informant; he is ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed for bail while learned counsel for the informant clearly submitted that, as per the instructions, the informant has already received the entire amount from the present accused. From perusal of the evidence, it is, prima facie, clear that no ransom call was made by the present accused; although, as per the investigation, Rs.4,00,000/- were transferred from the account of father-in-law of the informant in the account of the present accused butheimmediately transferred the |
| money to accused Salman; apart from that, he has already refunded the entire amount to the informant, which is admitted by the learned counsel for the informant; he has already served more than sixteen months in jail; the statements of star witnesses have already been recorded; now, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence; accordingly, without making any comment on the merits, it is a fit case for bail at this stage. The third 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.) 14.06.2022 Sukhbant |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused is fit for bail at this stage considering the circumstances of the case.
Abdul Samad
State
R.C. Khulbe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
