SUMIT KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010105242026

2026:UHC:9927
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/1066/2026

Sumit Kumar
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan,
learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal and Mr. Prabhat
Kandpal, learned Deputy A.G. and Mr.
Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. Applicant-Sumit Kumar, who is in
judicial custody in connection with Case
Crime/F.I.R. No. 25 of 2026 registered at
Police Station-Dineshpur, District
Udham Singh Nagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1),
109(1), 191(2) 3(5) of B.N.S. 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 has
falsely been implicated in the present
case; that, as per the prosecution case, a
matrimonial dispute had been subsisting
between the complainant and his wife for
the last several years. It is alleged that,

UKHC010105242026

2026:UHC:9927
on 17.02.2026, co-accused Aman Saha
called his family members to the
complainant's house, pursuant to which
his mother, sister, brother and other
persons allegedly reached there. An
altercation and assault are stated to
have taken place at the spot, during
which the complainant's mother
sustained injuries and subsequently
succumbed to her.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that the applicant has not been
named in the F.I.R. and has neither
carried any weapon nor assaulted the
complainant or his mother. It is
contended that the CCTV cameras
installed at the place of occurrence are
likely to capture the incident and may
substantiate the applicant's contention
regarding his role; that, rather than
participating in the alleged assault, the
applicant attempted to persuade the
parties to resolve their matrimonial
dispute amicably.
7. It is further submitted that the
applicant is neither a family member nor
a relative of any of the parties to the
matrimonial dispute and is merely a
friend of co-accused Aman Saha; that,
the co-accused informed the applicant
that a dispute had arisen between his
sister and her husband and requested
him to accompany him with a view to
resolving the dispute amicably; that,.
believing the said representation in good
faith and without knowledge of the

UKHC010105242026

2026:UHC:9927
actual facts and circumstances of the
dispute, the applicant accompanied him
to the complainant's house. It is,
therefore, contended that the applicant's
presence at the spot, by itself, would not
establish his involvement in the alleged
offence.
8. Learned counsel would also submit
that the applicant is a young man aged
about 26 years and he is in judicial
custody since 18.02.2026; that, the
applicant is a permanent resident of
District Udham Singh Nagar and there is
no reasonable likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the
prosecution evidence; that, the trial is
likely to take considerable time to
conclude and that continued
incarceration would adversely affect the
future of the applicant.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the prayer for
bail. However, the fact that the applicant
has been in judicial custody since
18.02.2026 is not disputed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and upon perusal of the
material available on record, this Court
finds that the applicant has not been
named in the F.I.R. The contention of
learned counsel for the applicant that
the applicant neither participated in the
alleged assault nor was armed with any
weapon, and that the CCTV footage may
throw light on his actual role in the

UKHC010105242026

2026:UHC:9927
incident, requires consideration at this
stage. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of
the allegations, the role attributed to the
applicant, the period of incarceration
undergone by him and the other relevant
factors governing the grant of bail, this
Court is of the view that the applicant
has made out a case for bail.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
11. Let the applicants 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.

(Alok Mahra, J.)
30.10.2026

Mamta

MAMTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef90
0bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.11.03 10:11:50 +05'30'