Uttarakhand High Court
Rehbar & Another ........Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2024)
In
Criminal Appeal No.282 of 2024
Rehbar & Another ........Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
With
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2024)
In
Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2024
Suleman ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat and Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocates for
the appellants in CRLA No.282 of 2024 and Mr. Sajjad Ahmed
& Mohd. Umar, Advocates for the appellant in CRLA No.332 of
2024.
Mr. J. S. Virk, Deputy A.G. with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Both the appeals arise from one common judgment and order dated 03.05.2024 & 06.05.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.195 of 2018, State vs. Suleman & Others, by the court of learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302, 342, 201 & 506 of 2 IPC and sentenced accordingly, therefore both the bail applications are decided together.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the appellants along with co-accused Salman assaulting Tanveer by a sharp edged weapon. He was seriously injured. He was in the hospital, when the FIR was lodged. Subsequently, he died.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the co- accused Salman was a child in conflict with law. In his enquiry, no one has supported the prosecution case. In fact, PW1 Julfikar, who has supported the prosecution case in the instant matter, has not supported the prosecution case in the inquiry against child in conflict with law, Salman and he has already been acquitted.
5. It is argued that post deposition of PW1 Julfikar in the enquiry against child in conflict with law Salman, an application was moved on behalf of the applicant for further cross-examination of PW1 Julfikar, but that permission was not granted to the appellants. Hence, they could not confront PW1 Julfikar on this aspect.
6. It is submitted that except the statement of PW1 Julfikar, there is no other material against the appellants. All the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in the instant case.
7. Learned State counsel admits these facts, but according to him, during trial, further cross-examination of PW1 Julfikar has not 3 been sought on the ground that he has not supported the prosecution case in the enquiry against Salman, the child in conflict with law.
8. Appellants and co-accused Salman were assigned the same role. Salman, admittedly, was a child in conflict with Law in whose enquiry, no witness has supported the prosecution case and he has already been acquitted. In the instant case, PW1 Julfikar has supported the prosecution case and all other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. This PW1 Julfikar, as stated, has not supported the prosecution case in the enquiry against Salman.
9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail applications are allowed.
11. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
12. The appellants Rehbar, Aleem and Suleman be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
13. List in due course.
1 (Siddartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.02.2026 24.02.2026 Akash