KRANTA NATH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010101562026

2026:UHC:9933

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
Date

No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

with Signatures

BA1/1034/2026
Kranta Nath
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A.
for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. The present bail application has been
filed by the applicant, who is in judicial
custody in connection with FIR No. 0120 of
2026, registered at Police Station Doiwala,
District Dehradun, for the offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the
Arms Act and Section 109 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant
and learned State Counsel and perused the
record.
4. As per the prosecution case, on
16.04.2026, while the police team was
conducting routine vehicle checking near
Chauk Hara Wala, Haridwar, on the basis of
prior information regarding a suspicious
white Swift Dzire car bearing registration No.
UK08TA-9193, the said vehicle was signalled
to stop. However, the driver allegedly
attempted to flee and, after abandoning the
vehicle, ran towards the nearby forest. When
the police team chased him and asked him
to surrender, he allegedly opened fire at the
police party with the intention of killing its
members. In self-defence, the police
personnel also opened fire from their
respective pistols, resulting in a gunshot
injury to the right leg of the accused. The
injured accused was apprehended and
identified as Kranta Nath. During the course

UKHC010101562026

2026:UHC:9933

of investigation, one country-made pistol of
.315 bore, along with live and empty
cartridges, was allegedly recovered from his
possession.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is
contended that the applicant was taken
away from his house at about 6:30 a.m.,
whereas the alleged incident has
subsequently been shown to have taken
place after 1:00 p.m. It is further submitted
that the State, deliberately, has not placed
the medical report of the applicant on record
along with the counter affidavit. However,
learned counsel for the applicant has filed
the medical report along with the rejoinder
affidavit, which records the following injury:
"Injury No. 1: A wound with inverted edges,
red in colour, with slightly blackened edges,
measuring approximately 1 cm × 0.9 cm,
present on the medial aspect of the right leg,
about 15 cm from the patella."
6. On the basis of the aforesaid medical
report, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the presence of blackening
around the margins of the gunshot wound
indicates that the firearm was discharged
from a very close range, allegedly within a
distance of approximately three feet. It is,
therefore, contended that the medical
evidence creates doubt regarding the
prosecution version of the incident. It is
further submitted that the applicant has
been in judicial custody since 17.04.2026.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted
that the applicant has a criminal history. In
response, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the cases constituting the
alleged criminal history relate to theft and
that the applicant was not named in those
cases.
8. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties

UKHC010101562026

2026:UHC:9933

and upon perusal of the material available
on record, particularly the nature of the
injury sustained by the applicant, as
reflected in the medical report, which
records the presence of slightly blackened
margins around the wound, coupled with
the submission that the applicant allegedly
sustained the gunshot injury from a close
range, whereas the prosecution attributes
the injury to firing by the police personnel in
the course of the alleged encounter, this
Court finds that the medical evidence raises
a prima facie question regarding the manner
in which the incident occurred. Having
regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the overall material
available on record, this Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail
upon furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the observations
made hereinabove are confined to the
adjudication of the present bail application
and shall not be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
12. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
30-10-2026
SB









Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a
2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796 A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE2
9BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.10.30 18:30:09 +05'30'
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA

UKHC010101562026

2026:UHC:9933