Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/580/2026 of SAGAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 16 June 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 580 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief
SL.
No
Date
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
BA1 No. 580 of 2026
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. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Ms. Sukhwani Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. The present applicant ‘Sagar’ S/o Shri Mamchand is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 05.03.2026 bearing Case Crime No. 84 of 2026, wherein, as many as 12 persons have been implicated including the present applicant for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 190, 191(2)(3), 333, 351(2), 351(3), 109(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and allegation of assault has been attributed to other co-accused and infact has been implicated due to previous enemity and rivalry. He submits that incident took place in a crowded locality and in a situation of sudden quarrel and chaos and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and as such deserves for bail.
6. Per contra, learned Brief Holder for the State, submits that the applicant take active participation in the commission of crime and there are CCTV footages and also the injured eye witness who sustain grievious injury and applicant suppressed about his criminal history and as such does not deserve for bail.
7. On the other side, learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the present applicant have a criminal history of six cases and he is indulged in criminal activity since long back. She also submits that the allegations are very serious in nature, therefore, he does not deserve for bail.
8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the present applicant has suppressed about criminal antecedents and the allegation are serious in nature, this court does not find any good ground to enlarge the present applicant on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.06.2026 PR