Allowed¶17

Arjun v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Mar 2025BA1/2325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital; Ravindra Maithani, J.; First Bail Application No.2325 of 2024; BNS 2023 Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 191(3), 333, 351(2), 352, 3(5); Case Crime/FIR No. 686 of 2024; Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun; applicant Arjun; co-accused Dharamveer bail rejected; Harish Kumar and Prince granted ad-interim anticipatory bail; attack with lathi, danda, khukhri and sword; thumb amputation of Chandan Negi @ Sonu; release on personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ¶17

Arjun Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No.2325 of 2024

¶3

Arjun ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manish Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 686 of 2024, under Section 109, 115 (2), 118 (1), 118 (2), 191 (3), 333, 351 (2), 352 and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“the BNS”), Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

According to the FIR, on 01.11.2024 at 8:30 p.m., the applicant alongwith the co-accused had assembled in front of the house of the informant armed with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. They intended to attack Bhura and forcibly entered in his house. The informant tried to pacify the applicant and the co-accused, but FIR records that instead they attacked the informant with lathi, danda and khukhri . When Chandan Negi @ Sonu came to rescue them, was also attacked by a sword. He tried to save himself, in that process, his thumb was amputated.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the allegation of attack with sword is made against Dharamveer. His bail has been rejected. The other persons, who were named in the FIR, namely, Harish Kumar and Prince etc. they have been granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶14

The Court particularly asked as to what attracted the offence under Section 109 of the BNS? Learned State counsel would submit that it is an attack by a sword which was made by the co-accused.

¶15

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶18

Jitendra

Arjun v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haridwar Education and Research Development Society Vs Union of India

Dal Bahadur Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sandeep Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manager Graphic Era Institute of Medical Sciences and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand

Desh Deepak Shrivastava Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Chandra Vs Chief Election Officer District Magistrate