Uttarakhand High Court
ABA/331/2026 of NIRANJAN SINGH ALIAS NEERU Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 13 August 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010138822026 ABA/331/2026 Niranjan Singh Alias Neeru --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. R.S. Sammal
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.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010138822026 ABA/331/2026
Niranjan Singh Alias Neeru --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. R.S. Sammal and Ms. Sarita Bisht, Advocates for the applicant.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned D.A.G. alongwith Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By means of the present application, the applicant seeks bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 104 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 190, 191(3), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable.
4. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant on 01.07.2026, wherein, it is alleged that five accused persons involving the applicant, shot at the complainant while he was driving the chassis of Ashok Leyland and was moving towards Mumbai. It is further averred in the FIR that just after entering the highway, applicant alongwith four other accused persons shot at the complainant and when they were not successful, they chased the complainant and again fired a gunshot at him, but, luckily the complainant escaped
unhurt, but, one passerby got injured by the gunshot.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case due to previous enmity; that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant.
6. On the last occasion, State was directed to seek instructions in the matter. Today, on instructions, learned State Counsel would submit that body as well as the headlight of the chassis was also marked with pallet shot. Thus, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the present bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature, therefore, the present anticipatory bail application is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant and the present anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
(Alok Mahra J.)
13.08.2026 Ujjwal