Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/298/2026 of BOBY SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 13 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 BA1/298/2026 Boby Singh --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik,
UKHC010028932026
2026:UHC:7236
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/298/2026
Boby Singh
--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. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Ms. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present applicant Bobby Singh, S/o Nirmal Singh is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 01.02.2024, bearing FIR No. 0059 of 2024, P.S. Sitarganj District U.S. Nagar wherein five persons were named including one unknown person and on completion of investigation initially five persons have been charge sheeted including present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 397, 412, 427, 504, 506 and 34 IPC.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 30.01.2026 and he has no previous criminal antecedent and the charge sheet has already been filed and there is no substantial progress in the trial. He also submit that earlier applicant was already enlarged on bail but subsequently on some dates he could not appears before the Trial Court, consequently NBW was issued and thereafter he was arrested and then he moved bail application but the same was rejected and now seeking regular bail.
Apart from this, he submits that in fact applicant is innocent since complainant UKHC010028932026
2026:UHC:7236 himself admits that the present applicant was not involved in this offence which is evident from the statement of the complainant.
5. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma learned A.G.A. for the State have not disputed that earlier the applicant was enlarged on bail but subsequently he could not appear before the Trial Court, consequently, NBW was issued, the proceeding under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was also initiated against him.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that earlier the applicant was enlarged on bail but due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not appear before the Trial Court and then he was arrested due to NBW on 30.01.2026 since then is he languishing in jail now he is seeking regular bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant Bobby Singh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court condition.
10. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
13-08-2026 Parul