RAM SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in relation to FIR No. 105 of 2023, for the offences cognizable under Ss. 120-B, 325, 342, 386, 506, 394, 411 and 34 of IPC, registered at I.T.I, District - Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR; he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. However, in the chargesheet, the applicant has been implicated and the ATM cards of State Bank of India are shown to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the other co-accused persons, namely, Ankit and Tamanna, who were named in the FIR, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 13/10/2023, passed in Bail Application No.1450 of 2023. He also submits that another co-accused, namely, Sumit Kumar, who was though not named in the FIR, but subsequently in the charge-sheet his name came, has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 7/11/2023, passed in Bail Application No.2417 of 2023.