A High Court judge rejected an application for regular bail filed by an accused implicated in offences under Sections 302, 307, 120-B and 201 IPC, finding that his criminal history and risk of fleeing influence witnesses. The court held the applicant did not deserve bail.
Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:6792
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| BA1/1359/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. |
|||
| 1. Mr. Abhishek Anthwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Yogesh, son of Shri Jeet Singh’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 17.06.2024 bearing FIR No. 0073 of 2024, Police Station – Clement Town, District – Dehradun which was lodged against driver of the vehicle No. UK07 DA 6262 for the offences punishable under Section 307, 353 427 IPC. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and furthermore, since charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and applicant is languishing in jail 25.06.2024 and furthermore, the applicant has no previous criminal history. He further submits that the car no reference of which has been given in the FIR does not belong to him and even he was neither driving the car nor sitting in the car at the time of incident. He further submits that applicant is ready to cooperate with the trial. 5. From perusal of the annexure no. 6 to the bail application, it reveals that applicant has criminal history relating to FIR No. 236 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 120-B, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station – Raipur, District – Dehradun wherein he has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench on 07.05.2025 by granting the benefit of parity of a co accused. 6. On the other side, learned AGA for the State has seriously opposed the bail by submitting that after committing the crime arising out of FIR No. 236 of 2024 relating to the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 120-B, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station – Raipur, District – Dehradun, applicant ran away in the car and broke the barricade when police personnel making efforts to stop him. He further submits that after thorough investigation and collecting the credible evidence,charge sheet has been filed. He further |
2025:UHC:6792
submits that applicant belongs to different State, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will certainly affect the trial and there may possibility that he may influence the witnesses. 7. I have perused the FIR and other material available on record as well as order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 07.05.2025 in another FIR No. 236 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 120-B, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station – Raipur, District – Dehradun in which applicant is bailed out. 8. So far as present case is concerned, this case was registered in different police station and as per the prosecution, after committing the offence in respect of FIR No. 236 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 120-B, 201 IPC, registered at Police Station – Raipur, District – Dehradun applicant ran away from the spot after commission of the said crime and broke barricade regarding which present FIR has been lodged on 17.06.2024 bearing FIR No. 0073 of 2024, Police Station – Clement Town, District Dehradun. 9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the contents of the FIR and other material available on record, this Court is of the view that applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 01.08.2025 SKS
2025:UHC:6792
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, accused in cheating, forgery and murder charges with criminal history of similar offences and accused in another FIR, deserves regular bail.
Whether the applicant's previous bail and conduct in another FIR justify rejection of bail in the present case.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogesh son of Shri Jeet Singh
State
Rakesh Thapliyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
