Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/657/2026 of SHABAZ Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 14 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 BA1/657/2026 Shabaz --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Labya Noor, learned
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/657/2026
Shabaz
--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. Ms. Labya Noor, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. The present applicant ‘Shabaz’ S/o Kaleem is praying for bail in reference to Case Crime No. 261 of 2025 arising out of First Information Report dated 12.09.2025 lodged at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, wherein, the present applicant was implicated for the offence punishable under sections 140(1) of BNS, 2023. On completion of investigation the present applicant along with two other co-accused namely Faizan and other one Shavej were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2) of BNS, 2023.
4. It is a case of kidnapping and murder. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is a delay in lodging the FIR and the other co-accused Faizan has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench on 12.05.2026. She further argued that the present applicant has no previous criminal history and is not involved in the alleged crime and it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is neither any direct evidence nor the chain of circumstances are completed.
5. Per contra, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned
Additional Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State, vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the applicant and the deceased were friends and there was also physical relation in between both of them and when this fact came into the knowledge of the mother of the victim then the parents of the deceased arranged her marriage and when this fact came into the knowledge of the applicant then he conspired with other co-accused and call the deceased to come outside her house from where she was kidnapped and then murdered.
6. He submits that there are the CCTV footages and after collecting all credible evidences the charge-sheet was filed. He further submits that the applicant does not deserve for parity of the other co-accused, who has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench on 12.05.2026 since the applicant and the victim known to each other. He also submits that the unknown headless body was recovered from the Canal after one month and proper identification was done by taking samples for DNA test and the DNA is matched. Mr. Sandhu also submits that it is a case of brutal murder committed in an organized manner by the applicant and other co-accused and the present applicant is the main conspirator, therefore, the present applicant does not deserve for bail.
7. After hearing rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through entire record as well as order of the Coordinate Bench dated 12.05.2026, whereby, the other co-accused Faizan has been granted bail and further taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation and particularly the fact that there is a scientific evidence also, this court does not found any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 14.07.2026 PR