Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7314 (UTT)

SHAHNAWAZ AHMED v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/133/2025 · 2025-07-08

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5868 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/133/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court on 27.03.2025. 4. Present applicant Shahnawaz Ahmed, son of Shri Nasir Ahmed, is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 31.05.2023 bearing FIR No. 0025 of 2023, Police Station – Bhatrojkhan, District Almora, wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 2 / 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been implicated in the present case on the basis of two criminal cases pertaining to NDPS Act in which applicant has already been released on bail. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.01.2023 and the trial has yet not been concluded, therefore, applicant be released on bail. 6. On the other side, learned Brief Holder for the State apprised to this Court that the applicant ran away from the custody and since the trial is going on and if the applicant is released on bail, then there may be possibility that he may frustrate the trial. He further submits that taking into consideration the past conduct of the applicant, particularly, the incident in which he ran away from the custody, the applicant does not deserve for bail. 7. I found force on the submission advanced by learned State Counsel and furthermore, there is no fresh ground, therefore, I do not find any merit in the second bail application. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected. 8. Taking into consideration that applicant is 2025:UHC:5868 languishing in jail since 16.01.2023, therefore, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 4 months from today. 9. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 08.07.2025. SKS