Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4192 (UTT)

RAMESH LAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/473/2025 · 2025-04-05

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2569 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. 473 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Ramesh Lal’ S/o Shri Baisaukh Lal is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 16.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 0006 of 2025, P.S. Chamoli, District Chamoli, which was lodged by one Than Singh against some unknown persons with regard to theft of certain gold and silver articles from the public Temple. 4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant Mr. R.P. Nautiyal submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and furthermore there is a delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that only on the secret information the applicant was arrested and the recovery as shown from the applicant by the prosecution is doubtful. 5. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant have no previous criminal history and all the offences in which the applicant is languishing in jail pursuant to the FIR are triable by the Magistrate. 6. On the other side, learned Brief Holder Mr. Akshay Latwal submits that the investigation is still going on, however, he has not disputed this fact that all the articles has been recovered from the applicant, which has been identified by the informant and have also not disputed that all the offences are triable by the Magistrate. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that all the offences are triable by the Magistrate and the applicant have no previous criminal history, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 2025:UHC:2569 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Ramesh Lal’ be enlarged on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.04.2025 PR