Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9538 (UTT)

KARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1338/2025 · 2025-08-11

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1/1338/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Chandramauli Shah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘’Karnail Singh, son of Shri Sundar Singh” is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 19.06.2025 bearing FIR No. 0117 of 2025, Police Station – Nanakmatta, District – Udham Singh Nagar, which was lodged against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 309 (4) of BNS, 2023. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and in fact, he is not named in the FIR and was arrested during investigation on 18.06.2025 by adding penal provisions i.e. Sections 310 (2), 317 (3), 111, 61 (2) of BNS, 2023. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no recovery from the present applicant and other co- accused Raju Rastogi and Chhindo Kaur have been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 08.07.2025 and 05.08.2025 in ABA No. 755 of 2025 and ABA No. 871 of 2025 respectively. He further submits that applicant has no previous criminal history. 5. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA have pointed out that applicant has no previous criminal history so far as present case is concerned, investigation is still going on, however, he has not disputed this fact that other two co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that allegations as alleged in the FIR as well as the fact that other two co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant ‘Karnail Singh” be released on bail on furnishing her personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 9. It is made clear that after being released on bail applicant shall cooperate with investigation and he will not indulge in any criminal activity. If applicant fails to comply with the aforesaid two conditions, the prosecution is free to move application for cancellation of bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 11.08.2025 PR