[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Nitin vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Third Bail Application No. 62 of 2025
Nitin ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Gurbani Singh and Ms. Sukhwani Singh, Advocates for
the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate for the informant,
through video conferencing.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Sessions Trial
No.99 of 2020, State Vs. Deepak @ Deepu and Others,
arising out of FIR No.521 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Laksar,
District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused.
3. This is the third bail application. The applicant
was granted bail in the instant matter on 12.03.2021, by an
order passed in BA1 No.437 of 2021. It so happened that the
Bail Cancellation Application No.34 of 2021 was moved,
which was accepted by the Court on 17.10.2022, and the
bail granted to the applicant was cancelled. In fact, the bail
was cancelled on the ground that post grant of bail, the
applicant extended threats to the victim with dire
consequences. Thereafter, an application was submitted to
the Standing Committee, Haridwar, constituted under the
Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and, subsequently, FIR
was lodged. In that FIR, chargesheet was submitted on
06.05.2022 under Sections 336 and 506 IPC.
4. The applicant did file the second bail application,
being BA2 No.397 of 2023, which was rejected on
03.01.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
post grant of bail in the instant case, an FIR was lodged
against the applicant and chargesheet was submitted, based
on which the bail was cancelled, but now, it is submitted
that in the subsequent FIR, after trial, the applicant has
been acquitted. Therefore, it is a ground for bail.
4. Learned counsel for the informant submits that
against acquittal of the applicant in the subsequent FIR, an
appeal is pending. He submits that, in fact, the applicant
had not permitted the witnesses to be examined in one day;
whenever they were examined, the cross examination was
deferred, and multiple opportunities were taken by the
applicant and the co-accused to cross examine the
witnesses.
5. Learned State Counsel admits that in the
subsequent FIR, the applicant has been acquitted, but she
submits that the injured has supported the prosecution
case.
6. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the
parties that the witnesses of fact have already been
examined. In the instant case, the Court is concerned with
the events, which took place after cancellation of the bail of
the applicant. The bail was cancelled because the
chargesheet was submitted by the police on the subsequent
FIR on 16.05.2022, under Sections 336 and 506 IPC. On the
basis of that chargesheet, in the trial, which was conducted,
the applicant has been acquitted.
7. It is stated that the appeal is pending, but having
considered, this Court is of the view that the bail was
cancelled on the ground that the subsequent FIR was
lodged, but the trial, based on that subsequent FIR, has
ended in acquittal. It makes out a case fit for bail.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant 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, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The applicant shall not approach the victim
or any of the witnesses of the case either
personally or through any other person or
electronically.
ii) He shall not extend any kind of threats to
the witnesses.
iii) He shall not seek any adjournment in the
trial, especially on the date when witnesses
are present.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
13.03.2026
Ravi Bisht
