[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1721/2025 on 16 April, 2026
2025:UHC:8337
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1721/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura and Mr.
Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Mr. C.K. Sharma and Mr. Nitin
Tewari, learned counsel for the
complainant.
4. Applicant-Faijan, who is in
judicial custody in connection with
F.I.R. No. 216 of 2025, registered under
Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1),
and 238 of the B.N.S., at Police Station
Ramnagar, District Nainital, has sought
his release on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that as per the
prosecution version, the F.I.R. has been
lodged against five persons, including
the present applicant and 10-12
unknown persons, alleging that on
13.06.2025, some acquaintances of the
deceased took him along, and later
during the night, the complainant came
to know about the murder of his son
aged about 23 years. It is alleged that
2025:UHC:8337
one Sikandar along with his associates,
including the present applicant,
committed the offence in furtherance of
common intention. It is submitted that
no specific role has been assigned to
the applicant in the F.I.R.; there is no
clear or cogent evidence demonstrating
his active participation in the
commission of the alleged offence; and
no motive has been attributed to him.
7. He would further submit that the
applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated; that, the applicant
has no criminal history; that, he is in
judicial custody since 16.06.2025. It is
also submitted that the bail application
of the applicant has earlier been
rejected by the court below vide order
dated 19.08.2025; that, that the
applicant is a permanent resident of
District Nainital and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution
evidence; that, the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have opposed the bail
application, submitting that there is
direct evidence against the applicant,
inasmuch as he is stated to be visible
in the C.C.T.V. footage at or near the
place of occurrence, and therefore, he is
not entitled to be released on bail.
9. To this, learned counsel for the
applicant would submit that the alleged
2025:UHC:8337
C.C.T.V. footage, even if taken at its
face value, does not establish the
involvement of the applicant in the
commission of the offence and the same
is a matter of appreciation of evidence
during trial.
10. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court
finds that the F.I.R. contains general
and omnibus allegations against the
accused persons, including the present
applicant, without assigning any
specific overt act to him. The role
attributed to the applicant is not clearly
delineated at this stage.
11. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a fit case for
grant of bail.
12. Accordingly, the first bail
application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant be released on
bail in the aforesaid case crime
number, on his furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the court concerned,
MAMT
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584a
f1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671
(Alok Mahra, J.)
A RANI
329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd548
16.04.2026
52c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab
5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.04.16 19:33:14 +05'30'
Mamta
