Uttarakhand High Court
BA3/18/2026 of ARUN KUMAR BALMIKI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 5 August 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010060012026 2026:UHC:6941 UKHC010060012026 BA3/18/2026 Arun Kumar Balmiki --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh
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 UKHC010060012026
2026:UHC:6941
UKHC010060012026 BA3/18/2026 Arun Kumar Balmiki --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Umanshu Singh Jolly, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. The present applicant – Arun Kumar Balmiki S/o Sudesh Kumar Balmiki, is praying for bail in reference to the FIR dated 03.01.2025 bearing Case Crime No.09 of 2025 P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 309 (4) and 317 (2) of BNS, 2023.
4. Instant third bail application and the first bail application was dismissed on its own merit.
5. The applicant have a long criminal history of seven cases, one relates to Section 302 of IPC, though in that case he has been acquitted, but there are other cases of similar nature of allegations, and not only this, in some of the cases, he has already been convicted, as informed by the learned AGA.
6. Learned AGA has also pointed out that it is third bail application and all the grounds as taken in the instant bail application, have already been dealt with in the first bail application, whereby the first bail application was rejected.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, the instant third bail application is rejected.
8. Though the learned counsel for the applicant argued at length and this Court is really appreciate his submissions, but the facts remains the applicant is indulged in criminal activities since long as evident from his long history.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
05.08.2026 Nitesh/