Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2185/2025 of DANISH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 7 August 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010179562025 BA1/2185/2025 Danish --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Azmeen, learned counsel for
SL.
No.
Date
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010179562025
BA1/2185/2025
Danish
--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. Azmeen, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
3. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant – Danish, son of Naseem Ahmed, seeking regular bail in Case Crime / F.I.R. No. 216 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) and 238 of BNS, registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR, nor he was present at the time of alleged incident and nothing has been recovered from the possession or from pointing out of the present applicant and the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.06.2025 and the co-accused, having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench in BA1 No. 2056 of 2025 vide order dated 20.04.2026.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is a case of parity and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the same.
7. Learned State Counsel have not disputed that the co-accused, having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.
8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the co-accused, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
9. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant – “Danish, son of Naseem Ahmed” be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject the following conditions:-
i. The applicant shall join the trial Court proceedings on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.
ii. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.
iii. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the trial court within a week after being released on bail and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.
11. It is further made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 07.08.2026 SKS