Balwant Kumar And Another --Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1966 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Balwant Kumar And Another --Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 March, 2026

                                                                                COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures                                                              2026:UHC:1769


                               BA1 No. 293 of 2026

                               Balwant Kumar and Another      --Applicants

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand           --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicants.

2. Mr. Chitrartha Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicants, namely Balwant Kumar and Harish Ram. The Applicants are in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2025, registered at Police Station Revenue Area Kalashila, Berinag, District Pithoragarh, under Section 140(3) of the B.N.S., 2023.

4. Heard Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicants, and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that Applicant No. 1 is a labourer and Applicant No. 2 is a tailor, and neither of the Applicants nor any of the other accused persons hold any position of power or influence in society, as they belong to a poor and downtrodden section of society. It is further submitted that the FIR is a delayed one and the Applicants are in jail since 11.12.2025 and have no criminal history. It is also submitted that the Applicants have neither shown any inclination to flee nor have they caused or attempted to cause any tampering with the evidence.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application.

7. As per the observation of this Court, based on the submissions made by learned counsel for the Applicants, the body of the victim Sunita Devi has not yet been identified, and in relation thereto, the blood sample and DNA report have not been furnished.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the Applicants be released on bail upon each of them executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 16.03.2026 SB