I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

13^TH OCTOBER, 2025

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 1916 of 2025

Pranav Kumar Saini ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singh,

Advocate through

video conferencing.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,

learned A.G.A.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The Applicant- Pranav Kumar Saini is in

judicial custody for the offence under Sections 303(3), 317(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No. 811 of 2025,

registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. According to the respondent, a motorcycle (Registration No. UK17P3055) of the informant was stolen on 07.08.2025. The First Information Report was registered on 07.08.2025 against the unknown person. The said stolen motorcycle and four other motorcycles were recovered at the instance of the present applicant

and the co-accused Ankit.

3. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

4. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been implicated in this matter. The said motorcycles were not stolen by him. The alleged recovery was false. Applicant has never been convicted. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Ankit, the co-accused of similar role, has already been granted regular bail by this Court, and, the applicant is in custody since 08.08.2025.

5. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application.

6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8. The Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Pranav Kumar Saini 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.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt:13.10.2025 Nahid