Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail To Liquor Shop Salesman, Canteen Cook And Restaurant Owner, Leaving Beer-Timing Dispute For Trial

The applicants sought regular bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 27 of 2026, registered at Police Station Jajardeval, Pithoragarh, under Sections 61(2), 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with others, assaulted the complainant and his colleague near a liquor shop, causing grievous injuries; one injured person was airlifted to Lucknow for treatment.

The applicants denied involvement and relied, among other things, on an alleged discrepancy between the complainant’s account of when beer was purchased and the liquor-shop records. They had been in judicial custody since 16 or 17 June 2026.

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 61(2), 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It applied a discretionary, fact-sensitive assessment of bail, considering the nature of the accusations, the applicants’ alleged roles, the circumstances raised by the defence, the period of custody, and the fact that the prosecution case remained to be tested at trial.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the injuries but found that the precise role of each applicant in an alleged group assault required evaluation at trial.

It treated the disputed liquor-purchase timings as a matter for trial, declining to determine the competing versions or the cause of the injuries at the bail stage. Considering these matters alongside the applicants’ custody and the untested prosecution case, the Court found that bail was justified.

It directed that each applicant be released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each for a like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.