Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/434/2023 on 2 April, 2025
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No Registrar's order with
Signatures
02.04.2025 BAI No.434 of 2023
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.S.Pal, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Medha Pande, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Devendra
Singh, A.G.A. for the State.
3. Applicant- Kailash Nath, who is in judicial
custody in connection with Case Crime No. 0008
of 2022, under Sections 109, 332, 353, 307 IPC;
4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Section
8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police
Station- Chalani Thana Lamgada, District
Almora, has sought his release on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed
a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on
record. Misc. Application (IA No. 3 of 2024)
made therefor stands disposed of.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends
that there is no recovery of any narcotic substance
or knife from the accused as alleged in the FIR.
The allegation of attacking the constables and
possessing the narcotic substance has been
levelled just to falsely implicate the applicant;
perusal of the supplementary medical report of
the police personnel would reveal that there is a
simple injury in his palm; besides this, the
medical report of the injured constables are
interchanged which has come in the statement of
the Doctor. There was no spot recovery from the
applicant and he was arrested on the next day of
lodging the FIR i.e. on 10.02.2022 from his
home. Furthermore, the applicant is languishing
in jail for more than three years and only 10
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far
and as per the charge-sheet, there are 23
prosecution witnesses to be examined.
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance on the principles
of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in the case of Mohd. Muslim Alias Hussain vs. State
(NCT of Delhi, reported in (2023) 18. Para 23, 24
and 25 of the above said judgement are being
extracted herein below
“23. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that
laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may
be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded
in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is
immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living
conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the
Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National
Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st
December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails
against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country20. Of
these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were
undertrials.
24. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at
risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High
Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State as “a radical
transformation” whereby the prisoner: (SCC Online Ker Para
13)
“13……loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses
personal possessions. He has no personal relationships.
Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status,
possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The
inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The
prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes.”
25. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime,
“as crime not only turns admirable, but the more
professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal”
(also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community”
published in 1940). Incarceration has further deleterious
effects – where the accused belongs to the weakest
economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several
cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds
and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be
sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an
acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure
that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact
stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”
8. Learned Deputy Advocate General
vehemently opposed the bail.
9. Considering the submission of learned
counsel for the parties and without expressing
any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this
Court is of the view that application deserves bail
at this stage.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his
executing personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the
satisfaction of Court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
02.04.2025
Kaushal