Buhsran Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

2026:UHC:2153

BA1 No. 251 of 2026 Buhsran Rana

--Applicant

Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the Applicant.

¶2Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶3The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant– Bushran Rana, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Yakub, R/o Shiv Puri Nai Basti, Khatauli, 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 offences punishable under Sections 310, 331(4), 3(5), and 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 read with Section 25 and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶4Heard Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the record.

¶5The present case relates to an incident of house trespass during late hours of the night at about 9:50 PM by four miscreants, wherein it is alleged that cash amounting to ₹1,00,000/- and jewellery were stolen. Subsequently, the case was converted into one of loot, and the present Applicant has been implicated as the person who allegedly hatched the entire plan.

¶6It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that he has been falsely implicated and is alleged to be the mastermind of the crime, despite the fact that he has neither been named in the FIR nor identified by the complainant's wife, whereas the other four accused persons have been identified. It is further submitted that no Test Identification Parade has been conducted. Hence, it is prayed that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶7Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and contended that the incident is a well-planned case of dacoity, wherein the present Applicant is the mastermind. It is submitted that the Applicant resides nearby and had conducted reconnaissance (recce) of the house and engaged the other accused persons in committing the offence. It is further submitted that part of the stolen property, namely a ring and cash amounting to ₹16,200/-, has been recovered, while the remaining amount has been recovered from the co-accused. Therefore, it is urged that the Applicant should not be granted bail.

¶8Considering the submissions advanced and the material available on record, this Court notes that, prima facie, the offence of dacoity requires the involvement of five or more persons, which aspect requires deeper examination during trial. At this stage, it cannot conclusively be held that the Applicant is the mastermind of the alleged offence or that he conducted any reconnaissance. Further, the Applicant was not named in the FIR and has not been identified by the complainant's wife, who is stated to be an eyewitness, and no Test Identification Parade has been conducted. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

¶9Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶10All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

25.03.2026 Shiksha