Uttarakhand High Court
Sumit Bisht @ Bali vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1129 of 2025
Sumit Bisht @ Bali ..................... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
...............Respondent
Present:
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Sunder Singh Mehra, learned counsel for the complainant.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The present applicant ‘Sumit Bisht @ Bali’ is praying for
regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated
10.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 77 of 2025 P.S. Haldwani, District
Nainital, wherein, he has been implicated for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 137(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023 along
with the present applicant three persons namely Devesh Alok @
Sunny, Rinku Bisht and Manish Joshi. After investigation the
present applicant was exonerated from the charge of Section
137(2) and the chargesheet has been filed for the offences under
Section 109, 3(5) and 352 of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3/25 of the
Arms Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated and infact the
applicant along with other co-accused Rinku Bisht took the
victim/injured to the hospital. He further submits that the
allegations as alleged in the FIR is completely false since the
complainant was not an eye witness of the incident and the FIR is
based on hearsay as the complainant himself admits this fact that
he was not present at the spot and he came after hearing noise of
2
gunshot. He further submits that during investigation the
applicant was exonerated from the charge of Section 137(2) of
BNS, 2023
3. He further submits that it is highly improbable that the
incident was happened in the main road in front of Civil Court,
but as per prosecution there was no independent witness. He
further submits that the applicant has been implicated with
malafide intent since it is an admitted fact that the complainant
and the applicant both contest the election of Nagar Nigam,
Haldwani and there was political rivalry between both of them.
He submits that the recovery of car and pistol on the instance of
the applicant is completely planted. He further submits that the
applicant was arrested on 11.03.2025 and since then he is
languishing in jail. He further submits that the applicant is sole
bread earner of his family and as such deserves for bail. In
paragraph 17 it is also contended that there are criminal history of
12 cases against the present applicant and in all cases the
applicant is already bailed out.
4. On the other side, learned counsel Mr. Sunder Singh Mehra,
who put his appearance on behalf of the complainant submits that
the present applicant is a history-sheeter and as many as 13
criminal cases are registered against him. He submits that if the
applicant is enlarged on bail keeping there may be a possibility
that he may tamper with evidence and threaten the prosecution
witness and releasing this applicant on bail is not in the interest of
the society because since last 15 years he is indulged in criminal
activity and there is a terror in the locality.
5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. based on written
instructions submits that on the pointing out of the present
applicant the country made pistol and the empty cartridges were
3
also recovered and furthermore the applicant have criminal
history of 13 cases, which are as follows:
(i) FIR No. 469 of 2010 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504 and 307 of IPC.
(ii) FIR No. 139 of 2016 for the offences punishable under
Section 307 of IPC.
(iii) FIR No. 124 of 2016 for the offence punishable under
Section 25 of Arms Act.
(iv) FIR No. 86 of 2017 for the offences punishable under
Sectioins 147, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC.
(v) FIR No. 183 of 2017 for the offences punishable under
Section 307/24 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act.
(vi) FIR No. 66 of 2018 for the offences punishable under
Sections 325, 504 and 506 of IPC.
(vii) FIR No. 68 of 2018 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 354 and 506 of IPC.
(viii) Case Crime No.. 59803 of 2017 for the offence punishable
under Section 3/4 of Gunda Act.
(ix) Case Crime No. 01 of 2018 for the offence punishable
under Section 110 G Cr.P.C.
(x) FIR No. 352 of 2018 for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
(xi) FIR No. 283 of 2020 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
(xii) FIR No. 346 of 2021 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC.
(xiii) FIR No. 403 of 2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 118(2), 125, 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023
6. It has also been apprised to this court by the learned counsel
for the complainant that in one of the case the present applicant is
also convicted.
7. In response to this, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that it is settled principle of law that past criminal history
4
will not come into the way in seeking bail and the bail application
have to be decided in its own merit.
8. The submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant though appears to be very convincing but keeping in
view of the fact that the first case was registered against the
present applicant in the year 2010, now we are in 2025, but the
applicant is repeatedly indulged in criminal activities since last 15
years. In my opinion the applicant does not deserve for bail
particularly when since last 15 years he is repeatedly indulged in
criminal activities, therefore, this court is of the firm opinion that
this applicant does not deserve for bail and the same is,
accordingly, rejected.
9. Since, the chargesheet has been filed, the Trial Court is
directed to proceed with the trial and expedite the same as early
as possible preferably within nine months. It is made clear that the
Trial Court will proceed with the Trial without being influenced
with the observations as made above.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
27.06.2025
PR