##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11657

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

30^TH DECEMBER, 2025

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2381 of 2025

Sahib ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief

Holder.

Hon’ble Alok Kum ar Verm a,J.

The applicant – Sahib is in judicial custody for

the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 125, 126(2)

and Section 140(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in

Case Crime No.131 of 2025, registered at Police Station

Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

2. According to the First Information Report dated

16.04.2025, on 15.04.2025, the applicant placed his

motorcycle in front of the informant’s scooter. A Swift car,

without registration number, coming from behind hit the

informant’s scooter. The informant fell to the ground. Three

unknown persons sitting in the car put the informant in the

said car. They wanted to extort money from him. When

passers-by arrived, they threw him and ran towards the

forest.

3. Heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the

applicant and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for

1

2025:UHC:11657

the respondent.

4. Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate, appearing for the

applicant, has contended that the applicant had supplied

wood to the informant. He assured that he will pay balance

amount of Rs.23,000/-, but he did not pay. They had a

dispute over the remaining balance. Because of this

dispute, the informant has falsely implicated the applicant.

Applicant did not know the co-accused persons. They were

outsiders. Applicant had no connection with them. He had

never seen them before the alleged incident. He (applicant)

has surrendered before the Magistrate. Applicant is not a

convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District

Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his

absconding. The co-accused Harpreet Singh has been

granted bail by this Court. The co-accused Sangat Pal and

the co-accused Sanju have been granted bail by the

Sessions Court.

5. Objection to the bail application has not been

filed. However, Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder, for the

State has opposed the bail application orally.

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 or trial is not

punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the

2

2025:UHC:11657

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 – Sahib 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: 30.12.2025

Pant/

3