Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3540 (UTT)

ASIF ALIAS BABLU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/585/2026 · 2026-04-22

Ashish Naithani

body2026

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 2026:UHC:2959 BA1 No. 585 of 2026 Asif Alias Bablu ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Asif alias Bablu, S/o Babu, R/o Near Shiv Mandir Road, P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 15 of 2026, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under Sections 310, 331(4), 3(5) and 317(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, and Section 3 read with Section 25 and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 4. Heard Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.01.2026 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the Applicant is not named in the FIR and has no previous criminal antecedents. It is further contended that a co-accused having similar and identical role has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 and, therefore, the case of the present Applicant stands on parity. Accordingly, prayer has been made to enlarge the Applicant on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail Application. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Applicant is not named in the FIR, has no criminal antecedents brought on record, and a co- accused having similar role has already been granted bail by this Court. The claim of parity, at this stage, appears to be well-founded. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 22.04.2026 Shiksha