Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2905 (UTT)

VIKKI YADAV v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/336/2025 · 2025-04-05

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2565 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.336 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant–Vikki Yadav is in judicial custody since 19.01.2025 and seeking bail in relation to the First Information Report dated 08.08.2024 bearing FIR No.0212 of 2024, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was lodged against four persons, who were named and one unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 117(2), 191(2)(3), 190 and 109(1) of BNS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, as per the contents of the FIR, was not present at the place of occurrence, and, furthermore, the other co-accused one Vanshupal, who as per the FIR itself, is the main accused and has been assigned the specific role, has already been granted bail by this Court on 20.03.2025 in first Bail Application No.264 of 2025. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that remaining other co-accused have also been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. Apart from this she submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, at this juncture there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 6. On the other side, Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State, 2025:UHC:2565 have not disputed this fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed against the applicant and the other co- accused have already been enlarged on bail. 7. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and the present applicant was not named in the FIR, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely, Vikki Yadav, 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. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.04.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:2565