Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1098/2026 of SANDEEP TEWARI ALIAS SANDEEP PANDIT ALIASH ARTH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 17 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1098/2026 Sandeep Tewari Alias Sandeep Pandit Alias Arth --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/1098/2026
Sandeep Tewari Alias Sandeep Pandit Alias Arth
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Pratul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present applicant ‘Sandeep Tewari @ Sandeep Pandit @ Arth’ S/o Ram Sagar Tewari is praying for bail in a reference to First Information Report dated 29.08.2025 bearing FIR No. 071 of 2025 P.S. Munikireti, District Tehri Garhwal, wherein, the present applicant is implicated and chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 64(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, P.S. Munikireti, District Tehri Garhwal.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that absolutely a false allegation has been alleged against the present applicant and the applicant is an unmarried person and 28 years old, whereas, the victim is a married lady of 31 years old and is mother of a child of ten years old and the charge-sheet has been filed in a very mechanical manner and even otherwise as per medical report there is no injury mark on the body of the victim and the present is languishing in jail since 04.09.2025.
5. He submits that the present applicant already suffered incarceration of more than ten months and there is no substantial progress in the trial and the FIR has been lodged with an inordinate delay of 6 to 7 months but there is no explanation of delay except that there was regular threat from the present applicant.
6. On the other side, learned State counsel have not disputed that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 04.09.2025 and also not disputed that the victim at the time of alleged incident was 31 years old and mother of ten years old child.
7. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 04.09.2025 and suffered more than ten months incarceration, this court is of the view that the present applicant deserve for bail.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant ‘Sandeep Tewari @ Sandeep Pandit @ Arth’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: i. That the applicant will not give any threat to the victim and her family members and shall join the Trial Court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. ii. After being released on bail the applicant shall not tamper any evidence and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.08.2026 PR