CRLA/105/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 1494 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                       AT NAINITAL

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH
                       CHAUHAN

                               AND

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK



       CRMA BAIL APPLICATION NO.10450 OF 2021

                                IN

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2020

                      12TH APRIL, 2021



Between:

Maqsood @ Bodda and others                             ...Appellants

and

State of Uttarakhand                                 ....Respondent

Counsel for the appellant:              Mrs. Pushpa Joshi,
                                        learned Senior Counsel
                                        assisted by Mr. Mohd.
                                        Safdar      and    Mrs.
                                        Chetna Latwal, learned
                                        counsel      for    the
                                        appellants.

Counsel for the respondent:             Mr. J.S. Virk, learned
                                        Deputy          Advocate
                                        assisted by Mr. Rohit
                                        Dhyani, learned Brief
                                        Holder for the State of
                                        Uttarakhand.

  The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:    (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
                             2




        Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants, has pleaded that the case

of appellant no. 2, Matloob @ Bhura, and the present,

appellant no. 1 Maqsood @ Bodda, stand on identical

footing. For, there is no specific overtact which has

been assigned to either of them. Moreover, while

appellant no. 2, Matloob @ Bhura, is 70 years old, the

appellant no. 1, Maqsood @ Bodda, is 74 years old.

Moreover, both of them have been convicted under

Section 149 IPC. By order dated 05.03.2021, the

appellant no. 2, Matloob @ Bhura, has already been

granted the benefit of bail. Therefore, keeping judicial

discipline in mind, the present appellant no. 1, Maqsood

@ Bodda, also deserves to be granted the benefit of

bail.



2.          On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned

Deputy Advocate General for the State, submits that

merely because one co-accused has been granted bail,

does not necessarily imply that the other co-accused

should be granted bail. Therefore, he has opposed the

grant of bail to the present appellant no. 1, Maqsood @

Bodda.
                                   3




3.          Without expressing any opinion on the merits

and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant

bail to the accused-appellant no. 1, Maqsood @ Bodda,

S/o Hanif, R/o Village Padli Gujjar, P.S. Gang Neher,

Rookree, District Haridwar, provided he submits a

personal       bond    of   Rs.   30,000/-   (Rupees   Thirty

Thousand), and two sureties of the same amount to the

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. He is further

directed to observe the following conditions:

               i. The applicant shall maintain peace and
               tranquility during the pendency of the
               appeal.
               ii. The applicant shall not directly or
               indirectly make any inducement, threat or
               promise to any person acquainted with the
               fact of the case.
               iii. The applicant shall report to the
               jurisdiction of police on every Monday of
               each week of each month.


4.             The Bail Application (CRMA No. 10450 of

2021) stand allowed accordingly.




                   RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.




                            NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK, J.

Dt. 12th April, 2021 AK/SB