Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/58/2026 of TAUFIQ AHMAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 20 July 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/58/2026 Taufiq Ahmad --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ankush Kumar
UKHC010072152026
2026:UHC:6075
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA2/58/2026
Taufiq Ahmad
--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. Ankush Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. The present applicant ‘Taufiq Ahmad’ S/o Shahbuddin is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 26.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 86 of 2025, wherein, he is facing the trial for the offence punishable under section 80(2) and 85 of BNS, 2023.
4. The first bail application was rejected on 28.11.2025 and now the second bail application has been moved. The other co-accused-the mother-in-law of the deceased Mrs. Amna Begum have already enlarged on bail on 12.08.2025. The another co-accused-sister-in-law of the deceased Ms. Nargis@Parveen is also enlarged on bail on 15.07.2025. The present applicant is the husband.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of preparation of inquest the applicant and other family members were present and there is no evidence with regard to the demand of dowry and the applicant never harassed the deceased and the post-mortem report clearly reveals that the deceased was died due to hanging not by strangulation and uptill date three prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and there are in total 11 prosecution witnesses, however, there is no possibility that the trial would be concluded soon and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025, UKHC010072152026
2026:UHC:6075 therefore, taking into consideration that he suffered long incarceration since last more than one year the applicant be released on bail.
6. On the other side, learned Brief Holder for the State, submits that all these submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant are the subject matter of the trial and not for bail. He submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased who died within seven years of marriage and there are sufficient evidence against the applicant.
7. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the instant second bail application lacks merit and is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 20.07.2026 PR