JAGDISH SINGH KHARAYAT vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010130902026

2026:UHC:10149
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/1306/2026


Jagdish Singh Kharayat
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

With

BA1/1329/2026


Ravindra Singh Tharkoti
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

With

BA1/1330/2026


Kamlesh Singh @ Kammu
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Suraiya
Naaz, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. These first bail applications have
been moved by the applicants seeking
regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.27 of

UKHC010130902026

2026:UHC:10149
2026, under Section 61(2), 109(1), 115(2),
117(2), 351(3) & 352 of B.N.S., 2023,
registered at Police Station Jajardeval,
District Pithoragarh.
3. The prosecution case, as narrated in
the F.I.R., is that the complainant, along
with his colleague Sunder Singh Bisht,
after completing their marathon practice,
was purchasing vegetables at Vadda
Market. Thereafter, they purchased two
bottles of beer from a liquor shop. The
salesman of the liquor shop informed
them about the availability of a canteen
adjacent to the liquor shop. It is alleged
that, thereafter, 4–5 unknown persons,
accompanied by the owner of the liquor
shop, arrived at the spot, hurled abuses at
them and assaulted them with lathis and
iron rods, as a result of which the
complainant and Sunder Singh Bisht
sustained grievous injuries. Upon arrival
of the police, the accused persons
allegedly fled from the spot. The injured
persons were initially taken to Military
Hospital, Pithoragarh. However,
considering the critical condition of
Sunder Singh Bisht, he was subsequently
airlifted to Lucknow for better medical
treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case and
have been languishing in judicial custody
since 16.06.2026 and 17.06.2026,
respectively. He submits that applicant
Jagdish Singh Kharayat is merely a
salesman working at the liquor shop,
applicant Ravindra Singh Tharkoti is a
cook employed at the canteen situated
adjacent to the liquor shop, whereas
applicant Kamlesh Singh alias Kammu is
the owner of a restaurant situated
adjacent to the said canteen. He further

UKHC010130902026

2026:UHC:10149
submits that the applicants have no
concern with the alleged assault and have
been implicated merely on account of their
association with the aforesaid
establishments. Learned counsel further
submits that the actual sequence of
events is materially different from the
prosecution version. According to him, the
complainant and his colleague had started
consuming liquor as early as 08:56 a.m.,
and the consumption continued till 11:37
a.m. He submits that, owing to excessive
consumption of liquor, both persons were
heavily intoxicated and had repeatedly
fallen down, resulting in the injuries
allegedly sustained by them. It is, thus,
contended that the possibility of the
injuries having been sustained otherwise
than in the manner alleged by the
prosecution cannot be ruled out at this
stage. It is further contended that even the
statement of the complainant recorded
under Section 180 of the BNSS suffers
from material inconsistency, inasmuch as,
he has stated that beer was purchased at
about 11:30 a.m., whereas the bills/
records of the liquor shop allegedly
indicate that the complainant and his
colleague had started purchasing beer at
08:56 a.m.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel
has vehemently opposed the bail
applications and submits that the
allegations against the applicants are
serious in nature, as the complainant and
his colleague sustained grievous injuries
in the alleged incident and the condition of
one of the injured persons was sufficiently
critical to necessitate his airlifting to
Lucknow for specialised medical
treatment.
6. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the

UKHC010130902026

2026:UHC:10149
parties and upon perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that
the applicants have been in judicial
custody since 16.06.2026 and
17.06.2026, respectively. It is not disputed
that the alleged incident took place at or
near the liquor shop and the adjoining
establishments where the applicants were
stated to be working or carrying on their
respective occupations. The precise role
attributable to each of the applicants,
particularly in the context of the alleged
assault by 4–5 persons, is a matter which
would require appreciation of evidence
during trial. This Court further finds that
the defence has raised a specific
contention with regard to the timing of
consumption and purchase of liquor by
the complainant and his colleague. The
alleged discrepancy between the time
mentioned in the statement of the
complainant and the entries reflected in
the liquor shop bills/records is a
circumstance which may be examined
during the course of trial. At this stage,
this Court is not required to undertake a
meticulous examination of the rival
versions or record any conclusive finding
regarding the manner in which the
injuries were sustained. It is also relevant
to consider that the applicants have
already remained in judicial custody for a
considerable period.
7. Having regard to the nature of the
accusations, the respective roles
attributed to the applicants, the
circumstances highlighted by the defence,
the period of incarceration already
undergone and the fact that the
prosecution version is yet to be tested
during trial, this Court is of the
considered view that the applicants have
made out a case for grant of bail at this

UKHC010130902026

2026:UHC:10149
stage.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the final merits of the case,
this Court is inclined to enlarge the
applicants on bail.
9. The bail applications are allowed.

10. Let the applicants be released on
bail, on executing personal bond by each
one of them and furnishing two reliable
sureties by each one of them, each of like
amount, to the satisfaction of Court
concerned.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.11.2026
Arpan



























ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7
393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744
6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.11.03 19:40:26 +05'30'