Dismissed¶¶6

Rakhbeer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Jun 2025ABA/1038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Uttarakhand High Court (UHC), Rakesh Thapliyal, J.; ABA Nos. 1330 and 1038 of 2024; applicants Gurjashan Deep Singh alias Jashandeep Singh and Rakhbeer Singh; FIR No. 0231 of 2024 dated 13.10.2024, P.S. Dineshpur, Udham Singh Nagar; offences under Ss. 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) r/w 352 BNS 2023; three gunshot injuries to chest; CCTV pendrive perused; charge-sheet filed; interim bail of 12.03.2025 vacated; decided 03.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Finding force in the submissions of the learned AGA, and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations — three persons having sustained gunshot injuries in the most vital parts of their bodies — the Court held that both applicants do not deserve anticipatory bail. ¶¶6

Rakhbeer Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:UHC:4443

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			ABA No. 1330 of 2024 with ABA No. 1038 of 2024 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
			1. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon and Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 3. These two anticipatory bail applications have been moved separately by Gurjashan Deep Singh alias Jashandeep Singh and Rakhbeer Singh, who are praying for anticipatory bail in relation to first information report dated 13.10.2024 bearing FIR No.0231 of 2024, Police Station Dineshpur, District-Udham Singh Nagar, wherein six persons along with four unknown persons were implicated for the offences punishable under Section 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) read with Section 352 of BNS 2023. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated and no specific role has been assigned to them and as per the CCTV footages, it is not clear, as to whether the gunshot injury was caused by these applicants or not. 5. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the entire investigation is faulty and the charge-sheet has been filed without any
			substance and evidence. Apart from this

¶3

2025:UHC:4443

¶4

Mr. Harshpal Sekhon argued that the Coordinate Bench earlier on 12.03.2025 granted interim bail on an event of his arrest, wherein it was contended that, in fact, the applicant is victim since he sustained knee injury in the said incident and an iron rod has been inserted in his knee, due to which he is unable to walk. 6. The other accused, namely, Prabhakar Singh was also granted interim bail by the Coordinate Bench and I have gone through with the order. 7. Now both the anticipatory bail applications are listed for today, in which the objections have been filed by the prosecution. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA vehemently opposed both the anticipatory bail applications by submitting that as per CCTV footages, 8 to 9 persons were firing and in this incident three persons sustained gunshot injuries, and, furthermore, in the entire incident, there are three eye-witnesses and the injured witnesses also disclosed the name of the applicants. The pendrive containing the CCTV footages is also placed on record and on the request of Mr. Harshpal Sekhon this Court also perused the same. 8. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the alleged incident is of serious in nature wherein three persons were injured who caused gunshot injuries and the injuries were caused in most vital parts of the body i.e. in the chest. Apart from this Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA submits that after thorough investigation and after collecting all credible evidences, the charge-sheet has

¶5

2025:UHC:4443

¶6

been filed, therefore, at this juncture, there is no any question for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. I have found force on the submission as advanced by Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State and therefore keeping in view of the seriousness of the allegations and furthermore that in the said incident three persons sustained gunshot injuries in most vital part of the their bodies, this Court is of the view that both the applicants do not deserve for anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, both the anticipatory bail applications are rejected. 11. The interim bail, granted earlier by this Court is also vacated. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.06.2025 R.Bisht

¶7

2025:UHC:4443

Rakhbeer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakhbeer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakshpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Santosh Dugtal Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Bajrang Bali Construction Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Indra Wati Vs Mohd. Hanif