Vikas Pal Alias Murga vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1462 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vikas Pal Alias Murga vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Alok Kumar Verma

                                                    2026:UHC:1223



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
                    24TH FEBRUARY, 2026
          FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 115 of 2026

Vikas Pal alias Murga                            .....Applicant

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand                            .....Respondent



Counsel for the Applicant    :       Mr. Saurav Adhikari,
                                     Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent :         Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,
                                     Assistant Government
                                     Advocate with Mr. Devender
                                     Singh, Assistant Government
                                     Advocate assisted by Mr.
                                     Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief
                                     Holder.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Applicant-Vikas Pal alias Murga is in judicial

custody for the offence punishable under Section

109(1) read with Section 3 (5), Section 309 (4) and

Section 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in

Case Crime No.49 of 2025, registered at Police Station

Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. According to the First Information Report, on

01.02.2025, Smt. Anju, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the

informant saw that Rakesh, the brother of the

informant, was lying on the ground covered in blood.

2026:UHC:1223 The First Information Report was registered against the

unknown person.

3. The prosecution has examined Smt. Anju

(PW2). She has stated that she had seen the CCTV

footage. One person's face was clearly visible in the

CCTV footage but the faces of the other individuals

were not clearly visible. In the CCTV footage, they were

using the name Rohit and other names to refer to one

another.

4. Heard Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned counsel

for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned

Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

5. Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate, has

contended that the applicant has been falsely

implicated in the present matter. He was not involved

in the alleged offence. CCTV camera was not installed

at the scene of the incident. CCTV camera was installed

nearby. Applicant is not convicted person. He is a

permanent resident of District Nainital, therefore, there

is no possibility of his absconding. Rohit Pal alias Chotu,

co-accused of similar role, has already been granted

regular bail in First Bail Application No.5 of 2026, and,

the applicant is in custody since 05.02.2025.

2026:UHC:1223

6. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government

Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally.

7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an

exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the

personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of

keeping the accused in detention during the trial is not

punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure

the attendance of the accused.

8. Having considered the submissions of learned

counsel for both the parties and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep

the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period,

therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the

merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the

applicant deserves bail at this stage.

9. The Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant-Vikas Pal alias Murga be

released on bail on his executing a personal bond and

furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like

amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date: 24.02.2026 JKJ/Pant