Uttarakhand High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Bail granted despite criminal antecedents, subject to stringent surveillance and compliance conditions.

SUHAIL KHAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Bail granted despite criminal antecedents, subject to stringent surveillance and compliance conditions.. SUHAIL KHAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant sought bail in connection with FIR No. 0371 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun, for alleged offences under Sections 109, 352 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Source reference: para. 3

He argued that he had been falsely implicated, that the medical evidence did not identify a definite cause or weapon of injury, and that the injured person was intoxicated at the time of the incident.

Source reference: para. 4

The applicant stated that he had been in custody since 10 February 2025 and that he had been granted bail in his previous cases.

Source reference: para. 4

The State confirmed that the charge sheet had been filed and did not dispute his custody, but relied on his criminal antecedents and sought stringent conditions.

Source reference: para. 5

The judgment records the FIR date as 19 October 2025, which is later than the stated arrest date.

Source reference: paras. 3–4
02

Issues

Whether the applicant should be released on bail while facing charges under Sections 109, 352 and 61(2) of the BNS.

Source reference: paras. 3–7

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents warranted stringent conditions if bail were granted.

Source reference: paras. 5–8
03

Law Applied

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 109, 352 and 61(2) of the BNS and exercised its discretion on the bail application.

Source reference: para. 3

It cited no precedent or specific statutory test governing that discretion; accordingly, no further legal rule can be attributed to the judgment.

Source reference: paras. 3–8
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the applicant’s submissions concerning the uncertainty in the medical evidence, his custody, and his prior grants of bail, alongside the State’s position that the charge sheet had been filed and its concern about his criminal antecedents.

Source reference: paras. 4–6

It found substance in the State’s concern and addressed it through conditions intended to secure the applicant’s attendance, restrict his travel, and facilitate police surveillance.

Source reference: paras. 6, 8

The Court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Source reference: para. 7
05

Holding

The bail application was allowed.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Source reference: para. 8

Conditions include attending every trial date without unnecessary adjournments, surrendering any passport within three days and not leaving India without prior permission, and providing his contact details—including his father’s—to the SHO of the nearest police station.

Source reference: para. 8

If the applicant engages in future criminal activity, the prosecution must inform the trial court so it may take steps to cancel bail.

Source reference: para. 8
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233

Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF

SUHAIL KHANvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment