Bail granted as there was no reason to keep the accused behind the bars for an indefinite period: High Court of Uttarakhand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 18121 03RD AUGUST 2021 …Applicant Between: Kuldeep Chaturvedi and State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mani Kumar. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. T.C. Aggarwal learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. P.S. Uniyal learned Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma J. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.0203 of 2020 registered with Police Station Transit Camp District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 323 365 & 367 of I.P.C. On 11.08.2020 at 20.05 hrs. an FIR was lodged by the informant Islamuddin that the informant had a welding shop in the name of Raja Fabrication. One Daya Kishan was working there along with him. Daya Kishan had a dispute regarding money with the present applicant and the co accused persons who used to come to his shop and threatened Daya Kishan by saying that if he does not pay then they will beat him and kidnap him. On 11.08.2020 at 17.40 hrs the applicant and the co accused persons came to his shop and took Daya Kishan forcefully in a Innova Car. On the same day i.e. 11.08.2020 Daya Kishan was recovered from the possession of the co accused persons. Heard Mr. Mani Kumar the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggarwal the learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. P.S. Uniyal the learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Mani Kumar the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter he was not present at the time of the alleged recovery the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar he is in custody since 22.06.2021 three co accused persons of identical role have been granted bail by this Court the applicant has no criminal history and charge sheet has already been filed therefore there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Mr. T.C. Aggarwal the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However he fairly conceded that the co accused persons of identical role have been granted bail by this Court. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal 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. 3 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. The bail application is allowed. the applicant Kuldeep Chaturvedi 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 : i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 10. 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. ALOK KUMAR VERMA J. Dt: 03rd August 2021 

Summary: The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is to secure the attendance of the accused. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma in the matter of Kuldeep Chaturvedi Vs. State of Uttarakhand (FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1812 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail, alleged of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 365 &amp; 367 of I.P.C. In the present case, an FIR was registered by the informant stating that he has a welding shop where Daya Kishan was working along with him. Daya Kishan had a dispute regarding money with the present applicant and the co-accused persons, who used to come to his shop and threatened Daya Kishan by saying that if he does not pay, then they will beat him and kidnap him. One day the applicant and the co-accused came to his shop and took Daya Kishan forcefully in an Inova car. Later Daya Kishan was recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was implicated in the matter and he was not present at the time of the alleged recovery. The counsel also pointed out that the other three co-accused persons were granted bail by the same court and further submitted that since chargesheet had already been filed, the release of the applicant on bail would not lead to tampering with the evidence. The Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the bail application. The court observed that – “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.” Thereby the bail application was allowed. Click Here For The Judgement