Rajkumar v. State of Uttarakhand

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

1 1 TH DECEMBER, 2 0 2 5

SECOND BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.3 15 of 2 0 2 5

Rajkumar

..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajveer Singh,

Advocate through

video conferencing.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Sweta Badola

Dobhal, Brief Holder.

Hon 'ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J.

The Applicant-Rajkumar is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 351(3) and Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.24 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Jhabrera, District Haridwar. 2 .

The First Bail Application No.691 of 2025 was dismissed on 10.11.2025 as withdrawn. 3 .

According to the respondent, the applicant and others beat the informant, his son, his brother and his nephew on 28.01.2025, in which they sustained injuries. 4 .

Heard Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for

the applicant and Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 5 .

Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate, submitted that the said allegations are totally false. The informant Jawahar Singh (PW1), the alleged injured Mintu Kumar

(PW2) and the alleged injured Rahul Kumar (PW3) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He has no criminal antecedents, and, he is in custody since

30.01.2025. 6 .

Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally. However, she fairly conceded that the informant and the injured persons did not support the case of the prosecution. 7 . 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 trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

8 .

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. 9 .

The Bail Application is allowed. 1 0 . Let the applicant-Rajkumar 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: 11.12.2025 Neha

NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3ftiti 8e9a4a8038ee7326b08b2dtieti 18b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779F B9677068452F32DE6BA960BFE 64D819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0 F92, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.12.11 18:18:43 +05'30'