Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/681/2026 of ASHRAF Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 12 June 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA 1st No.681 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,
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 JUDGES’S ORDERS
BA 1st No.681 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. The present applicant – Ashraf S/o Sabdar, is praying for bail in a reference to a FIR dated 19.02.2025, bearing FIR No.55 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar, wherein, he has been implicated along with three others and some unknown persons, for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 190, 191 (2) and 352 of BNS, 2023. In this FIR, the applicant’s wife Ruksar, is also implicated.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and in fact the complainant enters in his house with the knife and make an attempt to molest his wife and then he ran away and then sustained injuries and he admit him in the hospital. He also submits that in reference to this incident, the applicant’s wife also lodged an FIR implicating the complainant in which he has been chargesheeted.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the present case also in which the applicant along with his wife and others have been implicated, the chargesheet has already been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 115 (2) and 352 of BNS, 2023. He also submits that the Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents.
6. On the other side, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA, has not disputed that the chargesheet has already been filed and in the FIR of the applicant’s wife the complainant of the present FIR is also chargesheeted. He also submits that the Applicant has no previous criminal history, and since now the chargesheet has already been filed, and as such, there is no need for further custodial interrogation of the present applicant.
7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and the applicant has no previous criminal history, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant – Ashraf, 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.) 12.06.2026 Nitesh/