Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/490/2026 of ROHAN SINGH 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. 490 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, 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. 490 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. Gaurav Singh, 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 ‘Rohan Singh’ S/o Shri Suresh Kumar 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. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the charge-sheet has already been filed for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 190, 191(2), 333, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, therefore, there is no need of further custodial interrogation of the applicant. He submits that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and has been implicated only due to previous enemity and rivalry. He submits that all the allegations are general in nature and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 08.03.2026 the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent.
6. On the other side, learned Brief Holder for the State, submits that after thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed after collecting credible evidence, however, he has not disputed that the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no need for further custodial interrogation. Apart from this, he submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant Ms. Sukhwani Singh 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 is languishing in jail since 08.03.2026 and now the charge-sheet has already been filed, there is no need for custodial interrogation and furthermore, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant deserve for bail.
9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant ‘Rohan Singh’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.06.2026 PR