ISAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Uttarakhand judgment dated 2024-02-16. ISAM SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1059 of 2023 Isam Singh ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ... Respondent Present:- Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. A. Khan, AGA for the State. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1061 of 2023 Smt. Rajdulari ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ... Respondent Present:- Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. A. Khan, AGA for the State. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1062 of 2023 Smt. Bala Devi ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ... Respondent Present:- Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. A. Khan, AGA for the State. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1065 of 2023 Parmender Singh ... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ... Respondent Present:- Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M. A. Khan, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
(Oral) Since all these anticipatory bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are heard together and being decided by this common order. 2. Applicants seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 603 of 2023, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, P. S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, the applicants despite not being owner of a property, raised their claims in an acquisition proceeding for compensation. Subsequently, based on some compromise before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the compensation was received by the applicant Isam Singh. It is the case in the FIR that the compromise was prepared under a conspiracy by the applicants Smt. Bala Devi, Smt. Rajdulari and Parmender Singh. 5.
Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that, in fact, the applicants had purchased the property long before from the bother of the informant; the property has already been taken into acquisition and the share of compensation has already been received. Learned State Counsel would submit that as per instructions the applicants are cooperating with the investigation. The Court takes on record the statement given by the leaned State Counsel. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that this is a case fit for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail applications are allowed. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall be on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (“AO”). In addition to it, the applicants shall also comply with the following conditions: (i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation.
(ii) The applicants shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever. (iii) The applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court. (iv) The applicants shall deposit their passport with the AO. The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicants do not have passport, they shall give an undertaking to that effect to the AO. (v) The applicants shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above. (Ravindra Maithani, J. ) 16. 02. 2024 Avneet/
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.