BA1/627/2025 of ANSHUL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2025-06-18
Case number: 627 of 2025

Parties

BA1/627/2025 of ANSHUL (PETITIONER)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

B.S. JOSHI AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. (2003)

Statutes cited (4)

code of criminal procedure, 320 (1973)
constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
constitution of india (1950)
code of criminal procedure (1973)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

|**SL.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes, reports,** **orders or proceedings** **or directions and** **Registrar’s order with** **Signatures**|**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|
||||BA1 No. 627 of 2025 **Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.** 1. Mr. Mohd. Umar and Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocates for the State. 3. Present applicant “Anshul”, son of Shri Khem Singh, is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 15.10.2024 bearing FIR No. 419 of 2024, Police Station – Ranipur, District – Haridwar which was lodged against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Section 35 (1) (a), 106, 317 (2), 109, 121 (2), 309 (4), 132 BNS in which the charge sheet has been filed under Section 109, 121 (2), 309 (4), 132 and 3 (5) of BNS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2024. He further submits that since charge sheet has already been filed for the offences punishable under Section 109, 121 (2), 309 (4), 132 and 3 (5) of BNS, 2023 therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation. He further submits that the applicant has criminal history of six cases but he is bailed out in all the criminal cases. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA has not disputed this fact that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2024. 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2024, therefore, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant ‘‘Anshul” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. **(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)** 13.06.2025. SKS|