Case title: Sachin Kumar V. State Of Uttrakhand.
Case no.: 9668S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO(S).16513/2023.
Decided on: 01.04.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice ABHAY S.OKA, Hon’ble Mr. Justice UJJAL BHUYAN.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Sachin Kumar, the appellant, was involved in a case where he faced charges under Sections 420, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988. The charge-sheet had been filed, charges were framed, and 19 prosecution witnesses were cited in the case. Despite at least four co-accused being granted bail, Sachin Kumar had been in custody for over one and a half years with no prior criminal record.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The appellant, Sachin Kumar, was charged under Sections 420, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Additionally, he was accused under Sections 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988.arant was expecting imminent death at the time of making the statement.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant’s contention was that he had been in custody for over one and a half years without any prior criminal record, indicating that he deserved to be enlarged on bail pending the final disposal of the case.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The State’s contention was related to the change in the panel of Advocates representing the State/Union Territories in the Court. They highlighted that after a change in political power, there had been a shift in the panel of Advocates, leading to the need for adjournments. The State was reminded to ensure that changing the panel does not adversely affect the Court’s functioning.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court’s analysis and judgment were centered around the appellant’s circumstances. The Court observed that the appellant had been in custody for a significant period exceeding one and a half years, and no prior criminal antecedents were on record. This fact led the Court to conclude that the appellant should be enlarged on bail until the case’s final disposal. The Court directed that the appellant must be presented before the Trial Court within a week and granted bail under suitable terms and conditions.
Furthermore, the Court underscored the importance of the appellant not misusing the liberty granted through bail. It was explicitly stated that if the appellant were to misuse this liberty, the respondent-State retained the right to seek the cancellation of bail. This precautionary measure aimed to ensure that the appellant abided by the terms of the bail and did not engage in any activities that could jeopardize the legal process or public safety.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
