SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010103832026 2026:UHC:6281 UKHC010103832026 BA2/85/2026 Bhole --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present applicant – Bhole S/o Thakur Singh, is praying for bail in a reference to FIR dated 12.01.2026 bearing FIR No.15 of 2026, Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, wherein, on completion of the investigation, the present applicant along with one co- accused, namely, Khushpal, were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 305 (a), 317 (2), 331 (4) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.01.2026, and another co-accused, namely, Khushpal, has been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 27.03.2026. She further submits that chargesheet has already been filed and there is no need of further custodial interrogation and the recovery of the stolen articles as shown by the prosecution is planted one though the applicant have the criminal antecedents of five cases. 5. On the other side, Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA, vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the present applicant has criminal antecedents of five cases, therefore, he does not deserve for bail. So far as the grant of bail to the another co- accused is concerned, she submits that the applicant cannot claim parity since the applicant have a criminal antecedents of five cases . 6. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the present applicant that too relates to the similar nature of allegations, which itself reveals that the present applicant is indulged in such activities since 2011, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is hereby rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 23.07.2026 Nitesh/