Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9911 (UTT)

DEVNDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1503/2024 · 2025-04-02

Ashish Naithani

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 2025:UHC:2494 BA 1st No.1503 of 2024 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Devndra Kumar, S/o Sri Surajmal, R/o Jadbad (Jarvar) Meeranpur, Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The applicant is presently in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.0293 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar, under Sections 363-A/34 of IPC. He has sought his release on bail. 4. The facts of the case are that one Smt. Neetu Devi W/o Chotu Das, lodged an FIR against the unknown persons alleging that her Ankush, was taken away by someone. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present matter; the applicant was not named in the FIR; the applicant is in jail since 12.04.2024. He further submits that no identification test parade was ever been conducted by the prosecution; the applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that applicant and co-accused on 09.04.2024, from “Nightghat, Har ki Pairi” had kidnapped the son of the complainant, and during the course of investigation on 12.04.2024, the son of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused, and therefore, he submits that this is a serious offence, and bail may not be granted to the applicant. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J) 02.04.2025 Nitesh/