High CourtsSingle Bench

Sushil vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 28 March 2025 · Citation: (2025) 03 UK CK 0947

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 147, 302, 323
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2412 Of 2024
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

8 paragraphs · 161 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 354 of 2024, under Section 147, 323, 302, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglor, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He was named by the co-accused. There was one injured in the incident, who is the only eyewitness. He not supported the prosecution case.

4.

These facts are not denied by the learned State counsel.

5.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6.

The bail application is allowed.

7.

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