Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2551/2025 of RAEES AHMAD ALIAS RAHEESH AHMAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 16 July 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010214152025 2026:UHC:5928 UKHC010214152025 BA1/2551/2025 Raees Ahmad @ Raheesh Ahmad --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent With
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
UKHC010214152025
2026:UHC:5928
UKHC010214152025 BA1/2551/2025 Raees Ahmad @ Raheesh Ahmad --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent With UKHC010205462025 BA1/2487/2025 Mohd Faizan --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant in BA 1st No.2551 of 2025.
2. Mr. Mohd Matlub, learned counsel for the applicant in BA 1st No.2487 of 2025.
3. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
4. These two bail applications have been moved by the applicant – Mohd. Faizan S/o Sri Mohd. Furkan and Raees Ahmad @ Raheesh Ahmad S/o Abdul Hameed respectively, for seeking regular bail in reference to FIR dated 14.11.2025 bearing FIR No.0259 of 2025, Police Station Banbhulpura Haldwani, District Nainital, wherein, both the applicants has been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316 (5), 336 (3), 338 and 61 (2) of BNS, 2023.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated and are languishing in jail since 14.11.2025 and 16.11.2025, and the chargesheet has already been filed and therefore there is no need of further custodial interrogation. In respect of Mohd.
Faizan, there is one previous case, in which, he is already enlarged on bail, that too relates for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC. So far as the other co-accused is concerned, he has no criminal antecedents.
6. On the other side, learned AGA have not disputed that the chargesheet has already been filed and there is no need of further custodial interrogation of both the applicants and they are languishing in jail since 14.11.2025 and 16.11.2025. He also submits that applicant – Raees Ahmad @ Raheesh Ahmad, has no criminal antecedents, however, Mohd. Faizan, has one previous criminal antecedents, in which he is already enlarged on bail.
7. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and both the applicants are languishing in jail since 14.11.2025 and 16.11.2025 respectively and there is no need of further custodial interrogation, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve for bail.
8. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the bail applications are allowed.
9. Let the applicants – Mohd. Faizan and Raees Ahmad @ Raheesh Ahmad, be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions:- “(a) The applicants after being released on bail, shall join the Trial Court proceedings on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.
(b) The applicants shall not leave the country without leave of the Trial Court and shall surrender their passport, if any, with the trial court.” (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
16.07.2026 Nitesh/