Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9578 (UTT)

VINAY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1346/2025 · 2025-08-08

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 JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1346 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal 1. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG along with Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Vinay S/o Hemraj Singh is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 29.06.2025 bearing FIR No.0062 of 2025, Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant along with one unknown person and owner and partner of M/s Mahadev Gange Stone Crusher have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant have no nexus with creation of forged e-ravanna, since he was simply a supplier. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that he collect the material from the owner of Stone Crusher Unit, namely, M/s Mahadev Gange, Stone Crusher, and, if any, e-ravanna was forged one then the owner of the Stone Crusher Unit is responsible. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits without any substance and material and providing ground of arrest, the applicant was arrested. 7. He also submits all the offences are triable by the Magistrate and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2025 and is having no previous criminal history. 8. On the other side, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned AAG submits that the investigation is still going on, however, he has not disputed this fact that the all the offences are triable by the Magistrate. 9. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of the allegations, and, furthermore, all the allegations are triable by the Magistrate, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant, namely, Vinay, 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.) 08.08.2025 R.Bisht