SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010165852025 2026:UHC:6937 UKHC010165852025 BA2/267/2025 Yogesh --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Ms. Ketki Chaudhary, Mr. Abhishek Anthwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present applicant – Yogesh S/o Jeet Singh, preferred this second bail application for seeking regular bail in relation to the FIR dated 17.06.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0073 of 2024, P.S. Clement Town, District Dehradun, wherein, the present applicant along with the other co-accused are facing the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 427 and 34 of IPC. 4. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 01.08.2025, and now the instant second bail application is moved primarily on the ground that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 25.06.2024, and almost for more than two years, and he is in custody and there is no substantial progress in the ongoing trial. Apart from this, it is argued that in a relation to another incident arising out of Case Crime No.236 of 2024, the applicant along with other co-accused were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B and 201 of IPC, wherein, the applicant was granted bail by the coordinate Bench on 07.05.2025, by granting benefit of parity of other co- accused. She also pointed that in relation to the Case Crime No.236 of 2024, there were two main assailants, namely, Manish Kumar and Ramveer Singh, who have not been enlarged on bail and their bail application has been rejected by the coordinate Bench. She submits that in reference to this incident, the applicant was accompanying with two other co-accused persons, namely, Manish Kumar and Ramveer Singh, who are the main assailants in Case Crime No.236 of 2024 but in Case Crime No.236 of 2024, though the applicant is also chargesheeted, but enlarged on bail by giving the benefit of parity with those to whom no specific role was assigned. She further submits that a specific new ground has been taken in the instant second bail application that since on the first day when the first bail application was rejected, the main eye witness was not examined by the Trial Court, now thereafter, the eye witness is examined on 07.04.2026, who has not support the case of the prosecution. 5. On the other side, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA have not disputed that the applicant is already enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2024, and so far as the present case is concerned, which is in reference to an incident which was occurred after the incident of Case Crime No.236 of 2024. He has also not disputed that the present applicant is languishing in jail since last more than two years, in this particular case, however, he submits that the present applicant have a criminal antecedents of three cases, which all are in the State of Uttarakhand though this applicant belongs to the State of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, some exemplary and stringent conditions be imposed upon the applicant. 6. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and after taking into consideration that the present applicant is languishing in jail since more than two years and there is no substantial progress in the trial, though he is also an accused in a matter relating to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – “Yogesh”, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond of Rs.1.00 lacs and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (a) After being released on bail the applicant shall join the Trial Court proceedings on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. (b) Since the applicant belongs to a different State, therefore, no exemption can be granted to him to seek unnecessary adjournment in the ongoing Trial Court, however, it is made clear that as and when he leaves the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court, he will seek the permission of the concerned Trial Court and as and when, he enter in the State from his home State, he will give prior notice to the SSP concerned. (c) During bail the applicant neither will came in the contact with the other co- accused physically as well as through electronic media. (d) The applicant shall surrender, his passport, if any, to the Trial Court within three days, after being released on bail and shall not leave the country without permission of the Trial Court. (e) On breach of any such conditions, as aforesaid, the prosecution immediately shall apprise to the Trial Court and move an application before the Trial Court, and if such an application is moved the Trial Court immediately take appropriate steps. (f) This order will not be treated as a precedent in respect of other co-accused. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.08.2026 Nitesh/