Uttarakhand High Court
BA9/1/2025 of KULDEEP SINGH ALIAS K.D Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 13 November 2025
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Ninth Bail Application No. 01 of 2025 Kuldeep Singh Alias K.D. ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
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
Ninth Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
Kuldeep Singh Alias K.D.
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:- Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.649 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B, 34 and 174-A IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is the ninth bail application. The eighth bail application, being BA8 No.01 of 2025, was disposed of on 18.08.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the co- accused have already been granted bail; the role is not dissimilar; the applicant has already undergone 8 years and 10 months in judicial custody; he is seriously ill; on multiple occasions, he has been granted short term bail by the Court, which he complied and surrendered on time; he is medically unfit.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that all the materials for disposal of the bail are already on record. State does not propose to file any objections to the bail application. He admits that all the co- accused, having similar role, have already been granted bail. He
2 submits that once the applicant had jumped the bail, and he remained absconder for more than 3 years; he also fairly admits that applicant is quite unwell; he has undergone surgical procedures, and on that ground, he was granted short term bail on multiple occasions.
6. In fact, on earlier occasion, the bail application of the applicant was refused on the ground that on 27.06.2017, he was granted short term bail, but, thereafter, he remained absconder for more than three years. This is a fact, in fact. It is also an admitted fact that all the co-accused have already been granted bail. The applicant is quite unwell. He was to be operated for Hemorrhoids Grade 3, but learned counsel for the applicant submits that the operation could not be done as the applicant is suffering with Tuberculosis. His condition is critical. Post short term bail, which were granted to the applicant in the recent past, he had surrendered to custody.
7. Having considered, 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) Ravi Bisht
13.11.2025