Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1508 (UTT)

LAKSHYA TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/112/2025 · 2025-03-21

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2011 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/112/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V. S. Pal, learned Assistant Government Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant is in judicial custody since 28.12.2024 in relation to FIR dated 20.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0755 of 2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali Roorkee, District – Haridwar wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 140 (3), 351 (3) BNS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that earlier FIR was lodged under Sections 115 (2), 140 (3), 351 (3), BNS, 2023 but subsequently, Section 61 (2) (a) and Section 140 (4) were added just to make out the offence more severe. She further submits that since charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation. She further submits that applicant is a student of BA LLB and has no previous criminal history. 5. On the other side, learned AGA for the State fairly submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and furthermore, applicant has no previous criminal history and is a student of BA LLB, therefore, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant “Lakshya Tyagi” be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21.03.2025 SKS