Shakeel Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court 16 Feb 2024 First Bail Application No. 266 Of 2024 (2024) 02 UK CK 0023
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

First Bail Application No. 266 Of 2024

Hon'ble Bench

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Advocates

Gaurav Singh, Sandeep Sharma

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B, 307, 332, 333, 336, 353, 398, 420

Judgement Text

Translate:

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1. This Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First

Information Report No.991 of 2022, registered at police station Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. Present applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 307, 332, 333, 336, 353, 398, 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. On 16.10.2022, the informant Constable Surendra Sharma and Constable Pancham Prakash received an information that some unknown persons

were roaming near Durga Mandir over bridge, Laksar. Three suspicious persons were seen at around 17:15 hrs. An attempt was made to interrogate

them. One of them opened fire at them. Meanwhile, two unknown persons reached the spot. Constable Pancham Prakash had received gunshot injury

on his leg. The said persons managed to escape from the spot. The First Information Report was registered against the unknown persons.

4. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State.

5. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant is an innocent person. He is not named in the First Information Report. He has been

falsely implicated in the present matter. He is not a previous convict. Test Identification Parade has not been conducted. He is a permanent resident

of District Meerut (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He is in custody since 20.10.2022. Charge-sheet has already

been filed, and, co-accused persons of similar role have already been granted bail by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application orally.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found 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.

8. The Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant â€" Shakeel 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) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) 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 agency will be free to move the

court for cancellation of bail.

From The Blog
Rajasthan High Court Raps Axis Bank for Encashing FD Without Court Permission, Orders Refund
Dec
12
2025

Court News

Rajasthan High Court Raps Axis Bank for Encashing FD Without Court Permission, Orders Refund
Read More
FEMA Compliance for NRI Family Trusts: Legal Clarity on Corpus, Beneficiaries, and Repatriation
Dec
12
2025

Court News

FEMA Compliance for NRI Family Trusts: Legal Clarity on Corpus, Beneficiaries, and Repatriation
Read More