High CourtsSingle Bench

Gayyur And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 8 August 2025 · Citation: (2025) 08 UK CK 0559

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — Section 109(1), 115(2), 117, 118(1), 118(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 332(c), 351(2), 352
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1014 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 319 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The applicants are in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117, 118(1), 118(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 332(c), 351(2) and Section 352 in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, registered at Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar.

2.

According to the First Information Report dated 25.04.2025, the informant’s brother Aizaz was at his house on 24.04.2025. The applicants and others came to his house at around 8.30 p.m. They beat Aizaz with iron rods and sticks. He received injuries. Yasir, the cousin of the informant, was also present on the spot. Danish, the named accused, opened fire at Yasir. However, the bullet did not hit him.

3.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent and Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the informant.

4.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, submitted that the said allegations are totally false. On 24.04.2025 at around 07.00 p.m., Yasir, Aayan and Jaif beat the son of Amir. Thereafter, the informant’s party opened fire and outraged the modesty of woman. An FIR (No.137 of 2025) was also lodged against the informant of the present FIR and others. Applicants were not aggressors. Applicants have no criminal antecedents. They are in judicial custody since 22.05.2025.

5.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder and Mr. Parkishit Saini, Advocate have opposed the bail application.

6.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

7.

The Bail Application is allowed.

8.

Let the applicants Gayyur and Kadir be released on bail on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.