Uttarakhand High Court
BA3/27/2026 of IRSHAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 22 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010098592026 BA3/27/2026 Irshad --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Sr.
SL.
No.
Date
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010098592026
BA3/27/2026
Irshad
--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. D.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
3. It is a third bail application moved by the applicant “Irshad, son of Niyazullaha” seeking bail in reference to the FIR dated 30.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 29 of 2025 registered at Police Station – Gadarpur, District – Udham Singh Nagar wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 3 (5), 317 (2), 309 (4) of BNS, 2023.
4. First bail application was rejected on 08.05.2026 and second bail application was also rejected on 16.01.2026. Now, the third bail application has been moved on the ground that informant and his wife were examined by the trial court as PW1 and PW2 on 29.01.2026 and 12.02.2026 respectively that too, after rejection of the first bail application and second bail application. Both these prosecution witnesses have stated that present applicant was not involved in the commission of crime happened on 28/29.01.2025. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2025.
5. On the other side, learned State Counsel have not disputed that both the star witnesses i.e. informant and his wife clearly stated during cross examination
that present applicant was not involved in commission of crime.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the cross examination of both the star witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the third bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant “Irshad, son of Niyazullaha”, be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 22.07.2026 SKS