Nitin v. State of Uttarakhand

Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. for the State. Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The Applicant, Nitin S/o Rakesh, resident of Harinagar, Purkazi, District Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh), seeks his enlargement on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Case Crime No. 290 of 2022, registered under Sections 395, 397, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar.

2. The Applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2076 of 2023, which was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2023, for want of prosecution. The present application, numbered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 191 of 2024 is the second application. It has been moved after the submission of the charge- sheet and the framing of charges, invoking the well-recognised principle that a subsequent bail plea is maintainable when new or material circumstances have emerged after rejection of the earlier application. 3. As per the State’s case, on 08.06.2022, at around 1:40 p.m., the complainant, a jeweller running his establishment at Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar, alleged that six persons arrived on two motorcycles, three of whom were armed with country-made pistols, and forcibly took away Second Bail Application No. 191 of 2024 - Nitin v. State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. jewellery and cash after threatening him at gunpoint. The FIR was lodged soon thereafter against “unknown persons.” During investigation, the police allegedly arrested certain suspects, including the present Applicant, on 11.06.2022, and claimed to have recovered a country-made pistol from his possession. A charge-sheet was subsequently filed against him and other co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 506, and 120-B IPC, and charges were formally framed by the trial court.

4. Heard learned for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and does not contain any description or identification capable of directly connecting the Applicant with the alleged occurrence.

6. It is submitted that the Applicant was subsequently roped in solely on the basis of alleged disclosure statements, without any substantive corroboration. Learned counsel further contends that no stolen property or weapon was, in fact, recovered from his possession in the manner claimed, and that the alleged recovery memo does not bear the signatures of any independent public witnesses, rendering the same doubtful.

7. It is further submitted that the Applicant has remained in custody since June 2022, a period exceeding two years, during which the trial has barely advanced beyond the stage of framing of charges.

8. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposes application. It is argued that the offence in question is one of serious magnitude, an armed dacoity in broad daylight, and involves a grave threat to public order and confidence in the justice system.

9. It is further contended by the learned State Counsel that the Applicant was apprehended in close temporal proximity to the incident and that a firearm was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that there exists Second Bail Application No. 191 of 2024 - Nitin v. State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. sufficient material to sustain the charge, and that the release of the Applicant on bail may result in tampering with witnesses or otherwise interfere with the fair and smooth conduct of the trial.

10. However, the learned State counsel fairly concedes that the Applicant has remained in custody for more than two years, that the investigation is complete and the trial is progressing slowly, and that some co-accused have indeed been enlarged on bail.

11. The law relating to bail is now well-settled. While the Court must bear in mind the gravity of the allegations, the guiding principle remains that liberty is the rule and detention the exception. The Court, at the stage of considering bail, does not adjudicate guilt but only determines whether the Applicant’s custody is necessary to ensure the fairness of the investigation or trial. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that pre-trial incarceration should not become a form of punishment.

12. In the present case, several factors cumulatively persuade this Court to take a view different from that adopted while rejecting the Applicant’s first bail application. At that earlier stage, the investigation was incomplete and the apprehension of interference with evidence weighed considerably. The position has since changed, the investigation now stands concluded, a comprehensive charge-sheet has been filed, the Applicant has remained in incarceration for over two years, and the trial has scarcely progressed beyond the stage of framing of charges. Such protracted detention, without any substantial advancement in trial, constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the plea for bail.

13. A further feature of significance is that the FIR, at its inception, was against unknown persons. The Applicant’s name surfaced later through disclosure and alleged recovery. The record reveals no test identification Second Bail Application No. 191 of 2024 - Nitin v. State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. parade or contemporaneous identification linking the Applicant directly to the scene of the offence.

14. The alleged recovery of a country-made pistol, even if taken at face value, remains a matter to be proved during trial. At this stage, the absence of public attestation to the seizure weakens its prima facie reliability. The Court is conscious that these aspects are ultimately to be adjudicated at trial; however, their presence indicates that the prosecution case is not so clinching as to justify a denial of bail at this stage.

15. Having regard to the above circumstances, this Court finds that the continued custody of the Applicant no longer serves any investigative or preventive purpose. The trial is likely to take considerable time, and indefinite pre-trial detention would offend the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The seriousness of the charge, though a relevant consideration, cannot by itself outweigh all other factors when the evidence is yet to be tested and the Applicant’s conduct does not indicate any risk to the fair administration of justice. ORDER In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, including (i) the initial registration of the FIR against unknown persons, (ii) the disputed and uncorroborated nature of the alleged recovery, (iii) the absence of any prior criminal antecedents, (iv) the prolonged pre-trial incarceration extending beyond two years, (v) the parity with co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, and (vi) the completion of investigation culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet, this Court is satisfied that a case for the grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. Second Bail Application No. 191 of 2024 - Nitin v. State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. Let the Applicant- Nitin be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA (Ashish Naithani, J.)

20.09.2025 Second Bail Application No. 191 of 2024 - Nitin v. State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.