Allowed¶7

Aakash v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Jul 2026BA2/80/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court (Alok Mahra, J., 02.07.2026) allows second regular bail application BA2/80/2026 of Aakash in Case Crime No. 209 of 2025 (Sections 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 191(3) & 351(3), B.N.S. 2023), P.S. I.T.I., Udham Singh Nagar, after rejection of the first application on 02.04.2026. Grant rests on trial testimony of injured witness P.W.2 exonerating the applicant and denying any Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement implicating him, treated as a significant change in circumstances prima facie weakening the prosecution case, with no perceived risk of absconding, tampering or witness influence; bail on personal bond plus two sureties of like amount.

What did the court decide?

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

Aakash Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, whose first bail application was rejected on 02.04.2026, is entitled to regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 209 of 2025 in view of the trial-stage testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 constituting a significant change in circumstances that prima facie weakens the prosecution case against him. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

The injured witness (P.W.2), the star prosecution witness, in his testimony before the trial Court categorically stated that the present applicant was not among the assailants and, on the contrary, had assisted in rescuing him from the place of occurrence and taking him to the hospital for treatment.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The injured witness further deposed that he never made any statement before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicating the applicant, and expressed ignorance as to how such allegations came to be incorporated in his police statement.

¶5

Key takeaways

The statement of P.W.1 also does not materially support the prosecution case against the applicant.ratio¶5
At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses as recorded before the trial Court constitutes a significant change in circumstances and prima facie weakens the prosecution case against the applicant.ratio¶5
For the limited purpose of consideration of the present bail application, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail; the evidence against the applicant shall ultimately be appreciated by the trial Court at the appropriate stage.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Second regular bail application (BA2/80/2026) under F.I.R./Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, Sections 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 191(3) & 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023, P.S. I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar; the applicant's first bail application had been rejected on 02.04.2026. At the trial stage, P.W.2 (the injured victim and star prosecution witness) categorically deposed that the applicant was not among the assailants and had instead assisted in rescuing him and taking him to hospital, and denied ever making any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicating the applicant; the statement of P.W.1 also did not materially support the prosecution case. Held: this testimony constitutes a significant change in circumstances and prima facie weakens the prosecution case; nothing on record suggested the applicant would abscond, tamper with evidence or influence witnesses; and conclusion of trial was likely to take considerable time. Without commenting on merits, the second bail application was allowed and the applicant directed to be released on a personal bond with two reliable sureties of like amount. (Alok Mahra, J.), 02.07.2026.

¶1

UKHC010097462026

¶2

2026:UHC:5284

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/80/2026
			Aakash --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chandel, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This is second bail application moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.209 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 191(3) & 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023, registered at Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. The first bail application moved by the applicant was rejected by this Court on 02.04.2026.
			3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is wholly innocent. He submits that the statements of P.W.1 (the informant) and P.W.2 (the injured victim), recorded before the trial Court, materially demolish the prosecution case against the applicant. It is pointed out that the injured has categorically deposed that the present applicant was not one of the assailants; rather, he, along with certain co-accused persons, rescued the injured, lifted him fromthe place ofoccurrence, and assisted

¶4

UKHC010097462026

¶5

2026:UHC:5284

¶6

his family members in taking him to the hospital for medical treatment. The injured has further stated that he never made any statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicating the present applicant and has specifically deposed that he is unaware as to how such allegations came to be incorporated in his statement recorded by the police. It is, therefore, submitted that the testimony of the star prosecution witness itself exonerates the applicant, rendering his continued incarceration wholly unwarranted. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the injured witness (P.W.2), who is the star prosecution witness, has, in his testimony before the trial Court, categorically stated that the present applicant was not among the assailants and, on the contrary, had assisted in rescuing him from the place of occurrence and in taking him to the hospital for treatment. The injured has further deposed that he never made any statement before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. implicating the applicant and has expressed ignorance as to how such allegations came to be incorporated in his police statement. The statement of P.W.1 also does not materially support the prosecution case against the applicant. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses, as recorded before the trial Court, constitutes a significant change in circumstances and prima facie

¶7

UKHC010097462026

¶8

2026:UHC:5284

¶9

weakens the prosecution case against the
applicant. The evidence against the applicant shall ultimately be appreciated by the trial Court at the appropriate stage; however, for the limited purpose of consideration of the present bail application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. There is nothing on record to indicate that, if released on bail, the applicant would abscond, tamper with the prosecution evidence, or influence the witnesses.
6. Considering that conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail at this stage. The second bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned
(Alok Mahra, J.) 02.07.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536544 5e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.02 16:39:51 +05'30'

Aakash v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakash 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

X (Juvenile) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Digvijay Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manuj Gogia Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gurudev Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rahul Vs State of Uttarakhand

Raj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand