Purpose of detaining accused person is to secure attendance, not punishment: High Court of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 20920 8th JUNE 2021 Between: Rajan Singh. and State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mani Kumar. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sachin Panwar 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 FIR No. 637 of 2019 registered with Police Station Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 380 411 420 454 467 468 and 471 of IPC. On 06.12.2019 the informant Indrajeet Singh lodged an FIR stating therein that he along with his wife went to the District Hospital at about 12:45 hrs on 05.12.2019. He returned at around 02:00 pm and found that the lock of the main gate of his house was broken and jewelries LED TV mobile pass book pass port 2 educational certificates and clothes were stolen. The FIR was lodged against unknown person. On 24.07.2020 the applicant was arrested with a white Brizza vehicle bearing registration no.UK17J7814. During interrogation original number of the said vehicle was inquired. It was found that the original number of that vehicle was DL3CCQ6156. At the instance of the applicant four Aadhar cards and eight silver coins were recovered. Heard Mr. Mani Kumar the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sachin Panwar the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing. Mr. Mani Kumar the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated he has not been arrested at the spot there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery the First Information Report did not mention that silver coins and Aadhar cards were also stolen the applicant has not been convicted in any criminal case he is in custody since 24.07.2020 he has not committed any forgery and he has not used any fraudulent document as genuine charge sheet has already been filed therefore there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application however he fairly conceded that the applicant has not been convicted in any criminal 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. 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 merits of the case this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant 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: 08th June 2021 

Summary: Detaining someone who has not been convicted by a competent court would compromise on the personal liberty which Indian law guarantees. This is why bail should be granted to the accused in most cases, unless he is likely to flee or not attend court upon being summoned. A judgement passed by a single member bench consisting of Justice Alok Kumar Varma of the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Rajan Singh v State of Uttarakhand [First Bail Application No. 2091 of 2020] on the 8th of June 2021 addressed the issue of granting bail. An FIR was lodged by the informant Indrajeet Singh on 6th December 2019 over the theft of his LED Television, jewellery, mobile phone, pass-book, passport, educational certificates and clothes after his house was broken into while he and his family were away. Rajan Singh, the applicant was arrested as the suspect along with four Aadhaar cards and a vehicle with a modified number plate. The applicant’s counsel submitted that there was no witness to the crimes, the applicant had not been arrested on the spot of the crime and that he has been falsely arrested. It was added that the applicant remained in custody since 24th July 2020 despite not being convicted by any court and that there was no scope for the applicant to tamper with any evidence or manipulate the outcome of the case pending against him since the charge-sheet had already been filed. Justice Alok Kumar Varma noted that bail should be the rule and committal to jail the exception so refusal of bail was a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was further pointed out that “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”.