Titu vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicants, Vikas Kumar alias Raja, Sumit alias Sumit Kumar, and Titu, are in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, registered under Sections 392, 411, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Raiwala, District Dehradun. The FIR alleges that on June 21, 2022, at approximately 01:40 AM, three motorcycle-borne individuals pushed the informant and snatched ₹1,30,000, GST papers, and other documents. The applicants were arrested on June 25, 2022, allegedly confessing their guilt, and some money was recovered from them. The informant was reportedly called to the location of interception and identified the applicants.

Held

The Court allowed the bail applications. It noted that the informant could have identified the assailants only if an opportunity arose during the assault. The incident occurred at midnight, and there was no statement regarding a source of light, raising doubts about how the informant could identify the assailants. While the prosecution claimed identification was based on the assailants' build, the Court found this insufficient to deny bail. The Court concluded that the case was fit for bail and the applicants deserved to be enlarged on bail. The applicants were directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail given the lack of concrete evidence and the circumstances of identification, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The applicants argued that there is no evidence against them, questioning the availability of a light source at the time of the incident to enable identification. They also contended that nothing specific was recovered from them and that they are not previous convicts. The State argued that the informant identified the applicants when they were intercepted and confessed their guilt. The State also mentioned CCTV footage showing persons on a motorcycle in the vicinity. The Court's decision hinges on whether the identification process and the evidence presented are sufficient to deny bail.