Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/792/2026 of ADNAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 9 June 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 792 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for
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. 792 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. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present applicant Adnan, S/o Gulfam is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 14.06.2025, bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 216 of 2025 wherein he is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 238 of BNS 2023, P.S. Ramnagar, District Ramnagar.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 15.06.2025. He submits that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in commission of the crime so alleged, and there is no clinching evidence which connect the applicant in the said offence. Apart from this, he submits that trial has already been commenced and five prosecution witnesses have already been examined including star witness i.e. Avinash who was examined on 02.02.2026 and has not support the case of the prosecution. He also submits that other two witnesses, who as per the prosecution are the eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Vishal Saini and Yogendra PW3 and PW4 have also been examined on 18.03.2026 and 09.04.2026 and they too have not support the case of the prosecution and the trial Court declared them hostile. Apart from this he submits that other co-accused, namely, Faizan, Mohd. Asif and Shahrukh have already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench and claims parity.
5. Per contra, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the applicant does not deserve for parity of other co-accused Faizan, Mohd.Asif and Shahrukh since co-accused Faizan was granted bail by the Coordinate Bench on the ground that no specific role has been assigned to him and other two co-accused Mohd. Asif and Shahrukh were granted bail by giving benefit of parity, though, in the present case CCTV footages clearly depicts that the applicant took active role in the commission of crime.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the record as well as the FIR and the order of the Coordinate Bench, granting bail to the other co- accused, I do not find any substance to enlarge the applicant on bail and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Trial Court is directed to make all efforts to expedite the trial.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.06.2026 Parul