Piyush Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The applicant – Piyush Rawat is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No. 201 of 2025, registered at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital.

According to the respondent, on 23.06.2025 at about 07.30 p.m., Harish Singh Mehra, the younger brother of the informant, along with his companions Neeraj Bhagat, Bhupendra Singh Bora and Ganesh Singh Darmwal were going in a car from his house. Co-accused Rohit Mandola alias Raja and other persons came in front of the car and pulled Harish Singh Mehra out of the car and beat him. When Bhupendra Singh and Ganesh Singh Darmwal tried to save Harish Singh Mehra, the said persons assaulted them. Rohit Mandola fired to kill Harish Singh Mehra. Bullet hit Bhupendra Singh Bora. Rohit Mandola alias Raja fired the second shot at Bhupendra Singh. The companions of Rohit Mandola alias Raja were also armed. They also opened fire. Harish Singh Mehra, Bhupendra Singh and Ganesh Singh Darmwal were admitted to the hospital. The First Information Report was registered on 24.06.2025.

Heard Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, Advocate, contended that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. His name has come to light during the investigation. He did not know the injured persons and the main accused. The applicant, aged about 21 years, is a student of B.Sc. (Animation & Visual Graphics) (Honours/Research), at Amity University, Haryana. He has sufficient evidence including CCTV footage to demonstrate that he was present at another place at the time of the alleged incident. He has no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant is in custody since 05.07.2025.

Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent has opposed the bail application. However, he has conceded that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

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 trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

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.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Piyush Rawat 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.