Uttarakhand High Court
Ahsaan Ansari vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 June, 2020
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 967 of 2020
Ahsaan Ansari ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
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 Case Crime No.265 of 2020, registered with Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506, 509, 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 66 read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. An FIR was registered on 15.05.2020 against the present applicant and four co-accused persons on the basis of a written report lodged by the informant, alleging in it that she was introduced to the present applicant and co-accused persons about eight-nine months ago. They are journalists. She is a journalist in T.V. 99 News. These people stole some photos and recordings from her mobile. On 10.05.2020, the co-accused Gulfam defamed her by posting a stolen recording from her mobile on Facebook. They all told her that they would make her photos and recordings viral. About three-four days ago, she asked these people to delete her photos and recordings, then these people abused her and threatened to kill her.
3. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saurabh Pandey, the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
24. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated; the co-accused persons namely, Hamja Rao and Amjad have been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this High Court; the applicant is a resident of District Haridwar; he is in custody since 17.05.2020.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application orally, however, he fairly concedes that the co- accused persons, as mentioned by the learned counsel for the applicant, have been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this High Court.
6. Bail is the rule and the 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 investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
7. 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.
8. The bail application is allowed.
39. 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.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 22.06.2020 JKJ/Neha