Mohd. Danish vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2075 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mohd. Danish vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 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:1857

                               BA1 No. 237 of 2026

                               Mohd. Danish                    --Applicant

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand           --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant, Mohd. Danish, aged about 24 years, S/o Afsar Ali, R/o Manpur Colony, P.S. Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 441 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences under Sections 108 and 69 of B.N.S.S., 2023.

4. Heard Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in a most arbitrary, unusual, and blatant manner. It is also submitted that no offence under Section 69 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is made out against the Applicant, as the deceased, Dimple, was already gainfully employed as per her professional degree and was also a married woman aged about 29 years. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 108 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is made out against the Applicant, and there is no evidence against the Applicant by means of which it can be established that the Applicant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that denying marriage to a woman amounts only to a break in the relationship and cannot be construed as abetment to suicide. The Applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 11.10.2025.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application, contending that there is a chain of evidence and that the offences are serious in nature.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and further considering that at this juncture, on consideration of bail, the offence of abetment to suicide cannot be prima facie established, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

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

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

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 18.03.2026 Shiksha