Suraj v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures UKHC010200742025

2026:UHC:7626

COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

BA1/2442/2025 Suraj --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

Mr. Ankush Singhal and Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶2Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

¶3The instant bail application is moved on behalf of the present applicant-Suraj, S/o Hansraj alias Hansu in reference to first information report dated 13.07.2025 bearing FIR No.0302 of 2025 P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was lodged by one Amar Singh against Aakash and one unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/25 of The Arms Act.

¶4It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and is falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 16.07.2025 and there is no substantial progress in the trial since out of 17 prosecution witnesses up till date only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined, which as per the prosecution are the star witnesses and both these witnesses have been declared hostile by the trial court on

30.07.2026. He submits that the injuries though are shown to be is gunshot injury but are simple in nature and not danger to the life and furthermore, the applicant have criminal antecedents of one case in which he is already enlarged on bail. He further submits that one another co-accused Aditya Saini with the identical role is already enlarged on bail by this Court on 17.07.2026, therefore, the present applicant also deserves for the benefit of parity of other co-accused.

¶5On the other side Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State submits that after collecting all the credible evidence charge sheet has been filed however he has not disputed that two prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile by the trial court on 30.07.2026. Apart from this, learned AGA has not disputed that out of 17 prosecution witnesses only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the applicant have criminal antecedents of one case in which he is already enlarged on bail.

¶6After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.07.2025 and two prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile by the trial court on 30.07.2026 and furthermore, one of the co-accused is already enlarged on bail by this Court on 17.07.2026. , this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail.

¶7Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶8Let the present applicant-Suraj be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶9It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶10In breach of the condition as aforesaid, the prosecution is free to move an application for cancellation of bail.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

21.08.2026 Arti