Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2521/2025 of MEHRAJ Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 18 June 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010208572025 2026:UHC:5068 BA 1st No.2521 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr.
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 UKHC010208572025
2026:UHC:5068
BA 1st No.2521 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Mr. Devendra Singh, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. The present applicant – Mehraj S/o Kamruddin, is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 13.09.2024 bearing FIR No.788 of 2024, wherein, the present applicant along with one Raees, have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1) of BNSS, 2023 read with Sections 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. She further submits that the co-accused, namely, Raees, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 15.12.2025 in BA 2nd No.318 of 2025, and as such the present applicant also claims parity. She further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.09.2024 and chargesheet has already been filed, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
5. On the other side, learned AGA Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, have not disputed that though the co-accused has already been granted bail on different aspect and the present applicant is the main assailant and on his pointing out recovery was made and does not deserves for parity.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration that the co-accused has been granted bail and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 13.09.2024, and already in long incarceration and there is no possibility that the trial would be expedited soon, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant – Mehraj, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
18.06.2026 Nitesh/