Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

BA1/2484/2025
2026 Latest Caselaw 1139 UK

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1139 UK
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

BA1/2484/2025 on 17 February, 2026

                                                                  2026:UHC:1035
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               BA1 No.2484 of 2025
                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Arvind Vashishta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Disha Vashistha, Advocate, holding brief of Dr. Neha Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the complainant.

2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.239 of 2025, under Section 103, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352 & 117(2) of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

3. The applicant stands implicated in the aforesaid F.I.R. along with 11 named persons, but the charge sheet has been filed against only four, including the applicant. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 14.08.2025, which spans over six months at this stage.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant vehemently argues false implication, drawing this Court's pointed attention to the statements of witnesses Salman, Khushnasib, and Anis recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. by the Investigating Officer. Crucially, none of these witnesses implicates the applicant by name. The injured eyewitness further specifies that one Jaid held a Tabal; while, Anis wielded a knife, attributing no overt act to the applicant. The post- 2026:UHC:1035

mortem report of the deceased unequivocally records the cause of death as head injury from a hard and blunt object, with no injuries linked to any weapon or role attributable to the applicant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that other two eyewitnesses, namely, Munis and Iftakar in their statements recorded before the Investigating Officer have named the applicant.

6. To this, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that, even though the aforesaid two witnesses have named the applicant in their respective statements, their versions are consistent and omnibus in nature, without attributing any specific role or overt act to the applicant. It is contended that no material is forthcoming to demonstrate any act of assault, instigation, abetment, or active participation on the part of the applicant in the alleged occurrence.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A careful scrutiny of the statements of the two alleged eyewitnesses, namely, Munis and Iftakar, reveals that no specific or overt role has been attributed to the applicant in the alleged occurrence. The said statements merely indicate his peripheral presence without detailing any act of commission or omission so as to prima facie connect him with the alleged offence. The prosecution case, at this stage, appears attenuated, inasmuch as, there is no cogent material linking the applicant either to the principal assault or to the 2026:UHC:1035

cause of death. The inconsistencies in the witness accounts and absence of specific attribution furnish reasonable grounds to extend the benefit of bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that his release would prejudice the trial. Continued incarceration would be violative of Article 21, particularly in absence of compelling material under Section 103 B.N.S.

8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant, namely, Maajid Qureshi be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 17.02.2026 Arpan

ARPAN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048 5365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,

JAISWAL postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9 D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.02.17 17:25:44 +05'30'

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter