Balkar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 March, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Balkar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 March, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
          First Bail Application No.334 of 2025

Balkar Singh                               .............Applicant

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand                         ........Respondent

Present:-
      Mr. Arvind Vasistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant
      Singh Mahra, Advocate for the applicant.
      Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the
      State.
      Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the informant.

                           With
          First Bail Application No.335 of 2025

Pargat Singh                               .............Applicant

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand                         ........Respondent

Present:-
      Mr. Arvind Vasistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant
      Singh Mahra, Advocate for the applicant.
      Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the
      State.
      Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the informant.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both these bail applications arise from

one and the same FIR, they are being heard together

and decided by this common order.

2. The applicants Balkar Singh and Pargat Singh

are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.83 of 2024,

dated 28.03.2024, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34

IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station
2

Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have

sought their release on bail.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would

submit that the co-accused having similar role has

already been granted bail.

5. This fact is admitted by the learned State

counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the informant would

submit that, in fact, the gun which was used in the

offence was mortgaged by one of the co-accused and it is

the applicant, who got it released.

7. The Court wanted to know, as to what is the

document available in this regard? He would submit that

one of the co-accused has stated so.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that these are the cases fit for bail and the applicants

deserve to be enlarged on bail.

9. The bail applications are allowed.
3

10. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their

executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount; by each one of them to

the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
05.03.2025
Sanjay