High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohit vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 10 November 2025 · Citation: (2025) 11 UK CK 0223

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 303(2), 317(2) · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2131 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

10 paragraphs · 370 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The Applicant – Mohit is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.330 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2.

As per the respondent, a bike (Splendor Plus, Registration No. UK17R-8569) of the informant was stolen on 29.05.2025 by unknown person. The First Information Report was registered on 14.09.2025. The police recovered eleven motorcycles at the instance of the present applicant and co-accused persons.

3.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.

4.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the said motorcycles were not stolen by the applicant. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The said recoveries are planted. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is not a convicted person. He is in custody since 19.09.2025, and, Deepak, the co-accused of similar role, has already been granted regular bail by this Court on 31.10.2025.

5.

Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally.

6.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

7.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, 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.

8.

The Bail Application is allowed.

9.

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