Uttarakhand High Court
BA4/4/2025 of DEEPAK KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 3 January 2026
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Fourth Bail Application No.04 of 2025 Deepak Kumar ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr.Siddharth Singh Negi, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, 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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Fourth Bail Application No.04 of 2025
Deepak Kumar
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:- Mr.Siddharth Singh Negi, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Special Sessions Trial No.178 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 and 302 IPC, Police Station Sidcul, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution case, on 07.06.2021 at about 9:00, the applicant alongwith other persons entered into the house of the informant and assaulted them with lathi, danda and a sharp edged weapon, due to which, many persons got injured and subsequently, Prem Prakash died.
4. Initially, the FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504 IPC, but after the death of Prem Prakash, the offence was converted under Section 302 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 09.06.2021, the applicant was arrested, and he was released on bail,
2 but subsequent to it, case under Section 302 IPC, the applicant was again arrested on 24.07.2021. He is in custody for more than four years now. There have been 23 witnesses, out of them only 15 witnesses have been examined. It is a prolonged incarceration.
6. This fact is not denied by learned State counsel.
7. Having considered the period of incarceration and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 03.01.2026 Jitendra