Allowed

Sunil Kumar Kalra v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Dec 2023BA1/1104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by Sunil Kumar Kalra under Sections 121, 122, 420 IPC and the Arms Act, the Court observed that ownership of the flat where firearms were recovered was not established by documentary evidence. The Court allowed the bail application and directed release on a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Sunil Kumar Kalra Vs State of Uttarakhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 1104 of 2023

¶2

Sunil Kumar Kalra ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶3

Present:-

¶4

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for the applicant through video conferencing.

¶5

Mr. Amit Bhatt, D.A.G. along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.

¶6

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶7

Applicant- Sunil Kumar Kalra is in judicial custody in FIR No.189 of 2016, under Sections 121, 122, 420 IPC and Section 3/5/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station- Raipur, District- Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

According to the FIR, on 27.11.2016, police raided a flat and recovered various firearms and articles, which are used to manufacture firearms, etc. A person namely Aditya Mehra was the occupant of the flat when raid was conducted. Aditya Mehra revealed that, in fact, Gurvinder Singh was the occupant of the flat, of which the occupant was the owner.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is neither the owner of the flat nor was a tenant of it. He has nothing to do with the flat; he has not committed any offence; the trial is pending for years together now.

¶12

The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to how it could be alleged that the applicant is tenant or owner of the flat, from where various articles were recovered? Learned State Counsel would submit that Aditya Mehra had revealed that the applicant is the owner of the flat.

¶13

Ownership is not such a task, which could not have been established. If A says that B is owner of a property, apart from oral statement, the ownership documents could have been placed before the Court. It is not placed. Even it is not stated that it is with the prosecution.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, Aditya Mehra, who was the occupant at the time when the raid was conducted, has not been made a co-accused.

¶15

¶16

Having considered, this Court is of the view

¶17

that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

The bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant 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.

¶20

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 04.12.2023

¶21

Ravi Bisht

Sunil Kumar Kalra v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Kalra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sachin Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shander Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Irfan Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ankit Vs State of Uttarakhand