Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/844/2026 of AMIT KASHYAP Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 9 June 2026
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. 844 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned legal aid counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S.
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. 844 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. Priyanshu Gairola, learned legal aid counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The applicant ‘Amit Kashyap’ S/o Shri Bhupram is praying for bail in reference to Case Crime No. 151 of 2023 P.S. Kicha, District Udham Singh Nagar lodged on the basis of First Information Report dated 07.05.2023, wherein he is facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 379, 411 and 413 of IPC.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the said case crime the applicant was already enlarged on bail by the order dated 22.01.2024, however on 27.02.2025 the applicant could not appear before the Trial Court and non- bailable warrant was issued and then he was arrested on 15.04.2025. Subsequently, he further got bail from the Trial Court on 27.06.2025, however on 15.11.2025 again he could not appear before the Trial Court and the second time the non-bailable warrant was issued then he was arrested on 24.02.2026 and since then he is in jail.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first time the applicant could not appear because he was doing some labour job outside the State and the second time the mother of the applicant was suffering with severe case of kidney stones and she got operated on 24.02.2026.
6. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant is suffering from HIV and requires timely medical attention, which is not possible in jail.
7. Mr. Sandhu submits that the applicant does not deserve for bail since twice he jumped the bail
8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that though twice the applicant was granted bail but due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not appear before the trial court, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant ‘Amit Kashyap’ be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned subject to the condition that the applicant shall join the Trial Court proceeding on each and every date without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.06.2026 PR