Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/889/2026 of NASEEN ANSARI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 12 June 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 889 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant through V.C. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1 No. 889 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. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant through V.C.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State.
3. Present applicant Naseen Ansari, S/o Hasan praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 10.05.2023, bearing FIR No. 0337 of 2023 at P.S. Kotwali Jawalapur, District Haridwar, wherein he has been implicated for the offence punishable offences 302 and 380 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the FIR is nothing but based on a missing report and only on the basis of suspicion the applicant has been implicated. He also submits that there is no direct evidence and in the CCTV footages the applicant is not shown to be present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and as such no further custodial interrogation is required and since the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.05.2023 be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other side, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA on instructions submits that the applicant was identified by the driver of Tempo and the crime was committed by the applicant after making robbery in the house of the deceased and looted article were also recovered from the present applicant.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the offence as alleged is serious in nature and there are material evidence against the applicant, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the applicant on bail, hence the instant bail application is rejected.
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
12.06.2026 Nahid