2026:Uhc:1042 vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1128 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

2026:Uhc:1042 vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                                 2026:UHC:1042
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               BA1/226/2026

                               Vikram Das                 .....Applicant
                                                  Vs.
                               State of Uttarakhand
                                                           .....Respondents
                               Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, learned counsel with Mr. Amit Satyawali, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. The present applicant is praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 21.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 109 of 2025, registered at P.S. Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar wherein three persons, namely, Dharmendra, his wife Archana and Himanshu along with some unknown persons have been implicated and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 351(2), 190, 191 (3) of BNS 2023.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR, however, charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2025 and other co-accused particularly Himanshu, S/o Rampal and Vishal Das, S/o Vijay Das have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the present applicant claims parity. Apart from this, she argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history.

5. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State have not disputed that other co-accused have been enlarged on bail. She further submits that the present applicant deserves parity of the other co- accused, namely, Himanshu and Vishal Das who have already been granted bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the 2026:UHC:1042 parties and taking into consideration that the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.

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

8. Let the applicant Vikram Das 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.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.02.2026 Parul 2026:UHC:1042