PRAMOD NAUTIYAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010139192026

2026:UHC:10359
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/1366/2026


Pramod Nautiyal
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari and Mr. Vinod
Nautiyal (through Video Conferencing),
learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Ms. Meenkashi Sharma and Mr.
Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for
the State.
3. Applicant-Pramod Nautiyal, who is in
judicial custody in connection with Case
Crime/F.I.R. No. 0006 of 2026 for the
offences punishable under Sections 306,
316(5), 317(2) and 61(2) of B.N.S.
registered at Police Station- Shri
Badrinath, District Chamoli, has sought
his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated
in the present case; that, the F.I.R. was
lodged against the applicant on the basis
of a preliminary enquiry, wherein it was
alleged that the applicant was seen taking

UKHC010139192026

2026:UHC:10359
some money during the counting of the
amount collected under the head of ‘Thali
Bhet Calculation’. He would further
submit that during the course of
investigation; that, the applicant was
arrested and, after completion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet has been
submitted, wherein recovery of ₹ 5,000/-
has been shown to have been made at the
pointing out of the applicant from a room
situated in a Dharamshala at Shri
Badrinath Temple.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that although the
applicant was arrested on 12.07.2026, the
alleged recovery of ₹ 5,000/- was effected
on 28.07.2026, i.e., after a considerable
delay of more than sixteen days from his
arrest. It is further contended that the
alleged recovery was made from a room
situated in a Dharamshala, which was
accessible to the public and devotees, and,
therefore, the recovery is required to be
considered in the aforesaid factual
context. He would also submit that at the
time of the applicant's arrest, a Shaligram
was allegedly recovered from his house,
but apart from the aforesaid articles, no
other incriminating article was recovered
from his possession or residence.
7. Learned counsel would also submit that
the applicant is a permanent resident of
District Dehradun and has deep roots in
society; that, there is no likelihood of his
absconding or fleeing from the process of
law; and that there is no reasonable
apprehension of his tampering with the

UKHC010139192026

2026:UHC:10359
prosecution evidence or influencing the
witnesses. He would further submit that
the investigation is complete and the
charge-sheet has already been filed,
whereas the trial is likely to take
considerable time to reach its logical
conclusion. On these grounds, learned
counsel prays that the applicant may be
enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would
vehemently oppose the prayer for bail.
However, he does not dispute the fact that
the charge-sheet has been filed and the
alleged recovery was effected after a
considerable lapse of time from the arrest
of the applicant.
9. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court
finds that the investigation has been
completed and the charge-sheet has
already been submitted. The alleged
recovery of ₹ 5,000/- is stated to have been
effected from a room situated in a
Dharamshala, which, as per the
submission of learned counsel for the
applicant, was accessible to the public
and devotees. It is also relevant to take
note of the fact that the alleged recovery
was made on 28.07.2026, whereas the
applicant was arrested on 12.07.2026.
Having regard to the nature of the
allegations, the stage of the proceedings,
the period of incarceration and the overall
facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on the

UKHC010139192026

2026:UHC:10359
merits of the case, this Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties, each in the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly, threaten, induce or influence
any person acquainted with the facts of
the case.
(ii) the applicant shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence or influence any
witness.
(iii) the applicant shall cooperate with the
investigation and trial and regularly
appear before the Trial Court, unless
exempted.
(v) the applicant shall not leave India
without prior permission of the Court
concerned.
(vi) The applicant shall furnish his
current residential addresses and mobile
numbers to the Investigating
Officer/Court concerned and promptly
intimate any change therein.
11. In case of breach of any of the
aforesaid conditions, the prosecution
shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of
bail granted to the applicant.
MAMTA
RANI


(Alok Mahra, J.)
06.11.2026

Mamta


Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e43
0ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e689
11ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.11.06 16:26:25 +05'30'