Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1220/2026 of DEEPAK Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 15 July 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures UKHC010121352026 COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:5821 BA1/1220/2026 Deepak --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Abhishek Verma,
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 UKHC010121352026
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:5821
BA1/1220/2026 Deepak
--Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned AGA for the State.
3. Present applicant-Deepak, S/o Late Ravindra Kumar @ Pappu is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 10.06.2026 bearing FIR No.0231 of 2026, P.S. SIDCUL, District Haridwar wherein as many as 7 persons and one unknown have been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) & 109 of BNS, 2023.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent; has been falsely implicated and pursuing study in B.Tech; no specific role has been assigned against the applicant; applicant has no previous criminal history and in para 8 it is stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR, which is factually incorrect though his name is clearly mentioned in the body of FIR.
5. On other hand learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement, as given in para 8, is a typographical mistake. He submits that since the applicant has been falsely implicated and pursuing his study, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has seriously opposed the bail application by submitting that in this incident three persons were injured and sustained injuries, which are grievous in nature and the investigation is still going, therefore, at this juncture, it is not proper to enlarge the applicant on bail. He submits that one of the injured has not been discharged so far from the hospital and is battling for his life since the injuries are so grievous and serious; he is unconscious and undergoing neuro surgery and for the said purpose the scull bone of the injured has been removed by the doctor and kept preserved so that the scull may be fixed after surgery. He submits that if the applicant at this stage when the investigation is going on, is enlarged on bail, he may make attempt to affect the on going investigation.
7. After hearing the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of injuries, which are admittedly, grave and danger to the life and in this incident there are as many as three injured, this Court is of the view that applicant does not deserve for bail.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.07.2026 Arti