Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/995/2008 of MUSTAQ AHMAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 29 December 2008
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 29th December, 2008 2nd Bail Application No. 995 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Mustaq Ahmad S/o Shir Abdul Hameed …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite Party
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 29[th] December, 2008 2[nd] Bail Application No. 995 of 2008
Order on the bail application of the accused.
Mustaq Ahmad S/o Shir Abdul Hameed
…….. Applicant Versus…….. Opposite Party State of Uttarakhand _____________________________________________________________
In Case Crime No. 750 of 2006 U/s 302, 394, 396, 412 I.P.C. Police Station Kichha District Udham Singh Nagar Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.
Heard Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State; and perused the record.
This is the 2[nd] Bail Application on the ground that the 1[st] bail application was moved with the co-accused Munsiya @ Jalil Ahmad in which the bail application of both the accused was rejected for the reasons there was a recovery of gun at the pointing out of the accused. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that it was not considered that the case of the present applicant was different from the co-accused Munsiya. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is only confessional statement of the co-accused Munsiya in which his name and involvement have been shown in the crime. There is no recovery of any weapon from the possession of the accused/applicant. The gun was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Munsiya, so the earlier bail application was rejected.
After due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties; contents of the F.I.R.; the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the accused/applicant; and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for bail.
Let the accused/applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate.
(J.C.S. Rawat, J.)