Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2320/2025 of SADDAM Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 6 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 BA1/2320/2025 Saddam --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Deepak Petshali, learned
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.
UKHC010190262025
2026:UHC:5403 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/2320/2025
Saddam
--Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Deepak Petshali, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. By the instant bail application, present applicant-Saddam, S/o Jakil is praying for bail in reference to a first information report dated 10.07.2025 bearing FIR No.709 of 2025, P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar wherein he alongwith two other co-accused persons, namely, Wazid and Arif have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 352 & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and 4/25 of Arms Act.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent; has been falsely implicated and there is delay in lodging the FIR even the statement of son does not disclose, who was the main assailant. He submits that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim and the complainant; there is no independent witness and the recovery of knife as shown from the applicant is false and planted; the prosecution story is not supported by any scientific evidence. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in judicial custody since 13.07.2025.
5. On the other hand, learned Brief Holder for the State vehemently opposed the UKHC010190262025
2026:UHC:5403 bail application by submitting that as per the prosecution itself the present applicant is the main assailant and on his pointing out the knife, which was used in the commission of crime, was recovered and furthermore, the injury caused to the injured is dangerous to the life, therefore, applicant does not deserve bail.
6. After hearing the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail.
7. In such view of the matter, instant bail application lacks merit and is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 06.07.2026 Arti