COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL. Dat or directions No. e and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures 2026:UHC:246

BA 1^st No.1971 of 2025

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. B.S. Bhandari, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.

Vishal Singh Mahara, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. Gulshan Pandey, learned counsel for the Complainant.

4. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case arises from Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the Applicant Sachin Nabiyal S/o Late Sri Chandra Singh Nabiyal, who has been accused in Case Crime No.16 of 2025 under Sections 103 (1) read with Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police

Station Dharchula, District Pithoragarh.

5. As per the FIR, the person named Kamlesh Danu was stabbed to death, and learned counsel for the Applicant seeks parity with the submission that co-accused Ramesh Singh was enlarged on bail, and role being similar as alleged in the FIR, the Applicant may be granted bail by this Court. He further submits that the weapon of assault was not recovered from the possession of the Applicant nor it was recovered at his behest under Section

23 (2) of the Evidence Act.

6. Learned State Counsel, however, objects to the bail application and, in particular, the parity so raised regarding grant of bail passed in favour of the co-accused Ramesh Singh by this Court on 15.11.2025 in BA 1^st No.1614 of 2025, that in the FIR Ramesh Singh is nowhere named as the assailant, who stabbed the deceased with the knife or abeted with the offence. It was further submitted that the present Applicant Sachin Nabiyal and accused Chandu Khair, stabbed the victim deceased – Kamlesh Danu,

whereas the present Applicant Sachin Nabiyal, hold the victim (deceased hand) thereby abetted in the offence of the said crime.

7. It is also stated on behalf of the learned State Counsel that though there is no dying declaration, in particular, that was made that can be said to have been made on behalf of the victim/deceased. It is on record that while the victim was being taken to the hospital, the deceased while he was still alive narrated the incident to his father i.e. complainant. Hence, it is contended that there is a direct involvement of the present Applicant and the bail application should be rejected. At the outset, the present Applicant Sachin Nabiyal cannot claim parity with Ramesh Singh, who was granted bail by this Court in First Bail Application No.1614 of 2025, dated 15.11.2025, as primarily he was not found to be named in the FIR, and no prima facie role could be assigned to the said attack, which culminated into the murder of the deceased.

8. In the present matter without going into the merits of the case, the role so assigned against the Applicant – Sachin Nabiyal, is clear-cut abetment of the said act of which he shown to be a part of the crime while the main accused Chandu Khair, stabbed the victim/deceased with the knife and the present Applicant Sachin Nabiyal is said to have hold the hand of the deceased/victim, thereby firstly enabling the assailants Chandu Khair to attack the victim/deceased with the knife, and secondly holding back the victim/deceased to resist the attack in his defence.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is being called for in the matter. The bail application is hereby rejected.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

06.01.2026 Nitesh/