Dismissed¶9

Bhoora Alias Abhishek v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Apr 2026BA1/2462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; BNS Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 117(2), 351(3); FIR/Case Crime No. 209 of 2025; P.S.- I.T.I.; District Udham Singh Nagar; applicants Bhoora @ Abhishek, Aakash, Aman Kumar; judicial custody; chargesheet filed; viral video clip identification of assailants; delay of two days in lodging FIR; no specific role assigned; no enmity with injured victim; State counsel Deepak Bisht DAG; Alok Mahra, J.; decided 02.04.2026; batched with BA1 No. 1770 of 2025 and BA1 No. 1909 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the bail applications were rejected. ¶9

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

BA1 No. 2462 of 2025
With
BA1 No. 1770 of 2025
BA1 No. 1909 of 2025
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Ms.
Aishwarya
Thapliyal,
learned
counsel, holding brief of Mr. Abhishek
Verma, learned counsel, Mr. Tapan Singh,
learned counsel, holding brief of Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Chandel, learned counsel
and Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned
counsel for the applicants.
2.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for
the State.
3.
The applicants – Bhoora @ Abhishek,
Aakash and Aman Kumar, who are in
judicial
custody
in
connection
with
FIR/Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, under
Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(3),
117(2) and 351(3) of BNS, registered at
P.S.- I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar,
have sought their release on bail.
4.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

5.
In this case, an FIR was lodged on
30.07.2025 by the brother of the injured
victim, wherein, he has alleged that on
28.07.2025,
at
about
12:00
in
the
midnight, when his brother, who used to
work as a cook in marriages, was returning
home from his work, he was beaten up by
some unknownpersons badlywith stick

and weapons without any reason,
resultantly, his brother received serious
injuries. Upon information being received
by some villager, they went to the alleged
place, where they found the injured victim
lying near the railway track unconscious.
Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital
for treatment. The assailants also made
the video clip of the alleged incident, which
got viral and only after seeing the video
clip, the villagers identified the assailants. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that applicants have been
falsely implicated in the case; that there is
a delay of two days in lodging of FIR, that no specific role has been assigned to the
applicants and that the applicants have no
enmity with the injured victim and that
even in the FIR, enmity has been shown
with one Krishna and the present
applicants have no concern with Krishna,
thus, there is there is no occasion for the applicants to commit such offence.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged
is of a grave and heinous nature; that
after completion of the investigation,
sufficient evidences have been found
against the applicants and on the basis of
such evidences, chargesheet has been filed
against the applicants; that all the
applicants are identified in the video clip,
wherein,theyare seen draggingthe

and
weapons
without
any
reason,

resultantly, his brother received serious

injuries. Upon information being received

by some villager, they went to the alleged

place, where they found the injured victim

lying near the railway track unconscious.

Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital

for treatment. The assailants also made

the video clip of the alleged incident, which

got viral and only after seeing the video

clip, the villagers identified the assailants.
Thereafter, the FIR was lodged.

6.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

7.
Learned counsel for the applicants

would submit that applicants have been

falsely implicated in the case; that there is

a delay of two days in lodging of FIR, that
no specific role has been assigned to the

applicants and that the applicants have no

enmity with the injured victim and that

even in the FIR, enmity has been shown

with
one
Krishna
and
the
present

applicants have no concern with Krishna,

thus, there is there is no occasion for the
applicants to commit such offence.

8.
Per contra, learned State Counsel
vehemently opposed the bail application
and would submit that the offence alleged

is of a grave and heinous nature; that

after
completion
of
the
investigation,

sufficient
evidences
have
been
found

against the applicants and on the basis of

such evidences, chargesheet has been filed

against
the
applicants;
that
all
the

applicants are identified in the video clip,

wherein,theyare seen draggingthe

injured after ass the pro	victi aulti secu	m towards the railway track ng him, which fully supports tion story, therefore, the
present dismisse	bail d.	application is liable to be
9. Hav circumst the view enlarge present rejected. 10. The rejected.	ing ance tha the bail pr	considered the facts and s of the case, this Court is of t there is no good ground to applicants on bail and the applications deserve to be esent bail applications are
Ujjwal		(Alok Mahra J.) 02.04.2026

injured
after ass
the
pro

victi
aulti
secu

m towards the railway track
ng him, which fully supports
tion
story,
therefore,
the

present
dismisse

bail
d.

application is liable to be

9.
Hav
circumst
the view
enlarge
present
rejected.
10. The
rejected.

ing
ance
tha
the
bail

pr

considered the facts and
s of the case, this Court is of
t there is no good ground to
applicants on bail and the
applications deserve to be
esent bail applications are

Ujjwal

(Alok Mahra J.)
02.04.2026

Bhoora Alias Abhishek v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoora Alias Abhishek 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

Lovekush Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sameer Malik Vs State of Uttarakhand

Divya Juyal Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home) Government of Uttarakhand Dehradun, District Dehradun

Mohd. Abbas Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anil Sati and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ameer Hamja Qureshi Vs State of Uttarakhand