Alok Kumar Verma, J.

1. This is the Fourth Bail Application. The First Bail Application was rejected on 23.07.2018. The Second Bail Application was rejected on 17.11.2021 and the Third Bail Application was withdrawn on 10.02.2023. The present bail application is being considered as more than one year has been elapsed since the second bail application of the applicant was rejected.

2. Present Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 133 of 2014 registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun. Applicant is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 395, 396, 397 read with Section 34 and Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for the State.

4. According to the First Information Report dated 10.09.2014, on 10.09.2014, five unknown persons fired upon the son of the informant, killed him and looted cash along with gold jewellery from the informant's house. The informant, his wife, his mother in-law and a tenant were also injured.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been implicated in this matter. The name of the applicant is not there in the First Information Report. His name has come in the statement of the co-accused-Nadeem, from whom, a country made pistol and some jewellery were recovered. The co-accused-Nadeem and other co-accused persons have been granted bail. The alleged recovery of some jewellery, from the possession of the applicant was planted. There was no public witness at the time of alleged recovery. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, there is no likelihood of applicant absconding as well. He is in custody since 07.03.2017, and, he is not convicted in any case.

6. Objection to the bail application has not been filed by the respondent even availing sufficient opportunity to file the same. However, learned counsel for the State opposed the said bail application orally and submitted that the applicant was identified by the informant.

7. Learned counsel for the State had sought time on 23.03.2023 and 24.03.2023 to take instruction from the Investigating Officer regarding criminal history of the applicant. Today, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that as per instruction received, applicant is not convicted in any case.

8. 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.

9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

10. The Bail Application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Akram Ali be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) He will attend the Trial Court regularly, and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(2) He will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

12. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the Court for cancellation of bail.

13. Registry is directed to send a soft copy of this bail order immediately by e-mail to the applicant-accused through the concerned Jail Superintendant for necessary action.