Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Refusal Of Bail Restricts Personal Liberty Guaranteed Under Article 21: Uttarakhand HC Grants Relief To Man Accused Of Distributing Toxic Liquor

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
10 Sep 2022 7:00 AM GMT
Refusal Of Bail Restricts Personal Liberty Guaranteed Under Article 21: Uttarakhand HC Grants Relief To Man Accused Of Distributing Toxic Liquor
x

The Uttarakhand High Court recently observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus, must not be refused during course of trial, unless necessary to secure the attendance of accused.The bench of Justice Alok Kumar Verma made the observation while granting bail to a...

The Uttarakhand High Court recently observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus, must not be refused during course of trial, unless necessary to secure the attendance of accused.

The bench of Justice Alok Kumar Verma made the observation while granting bail to a person accused of distributing poisonous country made liquor, leading to several deaths in a village.

"Bail is the rule and 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 trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused."

The applicant was booked for offences under Sections 302, 328, 272, 273, 120B of IPC, Section 62 of the Excise Act, and, Sections 4, 5, 6(1)(a) of the Poisons Act, 1919.

4 litre illicit liquor, in a Jerkin, was allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

Applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this matter and that nothing was recovered from his possession. Further, it was alleged that recovery of the poisonous liquor was planted and that he was not named in the FIR. Moreover, co-accused persons of the similar role had been granted bail.

State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that co-accused persons of the similar role have been granted bail.

Court said that in the present circumstances, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, he was granted bail.

Case Title : Sonu v State of Uttarakhand

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 30

Next Story