VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Uttarakhand High Court 2026 › High Court of Uttarakhand

Tushar Gome v. State of Uttarakhand

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Uttarakhand
Decided
24 August 2026
Bench
Rakesh Thapliyalauthor
Case no.
BA1 1341/2026

Follow Uttarakhand High CourtFollow Rakesh Thapliyal

Judgment

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

BA1/1341/2026

Tushar Gome --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

¶1Ms. Rasveen Kaur Kapoor, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶2Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶3The instant bail application is moved on behalf of the applicant 'Tushar Gome' S/o Hemant Gome, who is the resident of Madya Pradesh seeking bail in reference to First Information Report dated 15.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 33 of 2025 P.S. Kotwali Almora, District Almora, which was lodged against one unknown person for the offence punishable under section 318(4) of BNS, 2023.

¶4During investigation applicant's involvement was found and in total four persons including present applicant have been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 308(5), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023.

¶5It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the other co-accused Dilawar Khan has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this court by order dated 09.07.2026 passed in BA2 No. 75 of 2026. She submits that in reference to similar chain of offence another FIR was lodged in district Gwalior i.e. Case Crime No. 10 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 319(2), 318(4), 308(2), 336(2), 337, 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, 2023, r/w section 66-D of I.T. Act, wherein, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench enlarged him on bail on 17.07.2026. She further submits that there is no recovery of any transaction from the present applicant except one

account payee cheque. She further argued that the applicant have no previous criminal antecedent except one in which he is already enlarged on bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. She further submits that the applicant is B.Com graduate and pursuing for competition and since the co-accused is already enlarged on bail and the present applicant is in judicial custody since 19.04.2025 and suffered incarceration of more than one year three months and, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.

¶6On the other side, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey have not disputed that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the other co-accused Dilawar Khan is already enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench and in the other case, which was registered at Gwalior, the applicant is already enlarged on bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and except this there is no any other criminal antecedent.

¶7After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant is languishing in jail since more than one year three months and the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and the applicant is already enlarged on bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in another case, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.

¶8Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶9Let the applicant 'Tushar Gome' be enlarged on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him. ii. The applicant will cooperate in investigation/trial, as the case may be. iii. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the police officer, as the case may be. iv. The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial. v. The applicant will not seek unnecessary

adjournments during the trial. vi. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of Trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

24.08.2026 PR

Source: High Court of Uttarakhand, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.