DEVENDRA KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A., ,S R S GILL,MILIND RAJ,KUNDAN SINGH — BA1/2416/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109(1),191(2),191(3),190,115(2),351(2),352. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010198192025
Filing Number
BA1/10242/2025
Filing Date
10-Dec-2025
Registration No
BA1/2416/2025
Registration Date
10-Dec-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
APPLICATIONS ( 5 )
Sub-Category
BAIL DURING THE TRIAL ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
19-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DEVENDRA KUMAR
Adv. HARSH TANEJA,SACHIN KUMAR,SACHIN KUMAR, ,AADESH TANEJA,M K RAY,LALIT SHARMA,RAMJI SHRIVASTAVA,SACHIN KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A., ,S R S GILL,MILIND RAJ,KUNDAN SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
Case Summary: BA1/2416/2025 - Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand The court granted bail to Devendra Kumar, who was accused under BNS sections involving abetment and causing grievous injury in FIR No. 951/2024. The court found merit in the applicant's arguments that no specific role causing fatal/grievous injury was attributed to him—the principal role was assigned to co-accused Azad (deceased). Critically, the applicant's name appeared only in supplementary statements, not initial victim statements, creating arguable inconsistencies in the prosecution case; moreover, medical evidence of a deep triangular lacerated wound was inconsistent with the alleged wooden stick assault. The court accordingly allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant on personal bond with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-May-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
14-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
14-May-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
12-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
12-May-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
30-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
10-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
10-Mar-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
27-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
26-Feb-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
24-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
24-Feb-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
-
17-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF
-
17-Feb-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
-
13-Feb-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
-
10-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF
-
10-Jan-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
-
09-Jan-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
-
08-Jan-2026
Bail Order Matters (After Fresh) -254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
-
03-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF
-
22-Dec-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar VermaView PDF
-
22-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Dec-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar VermaView PDF
-
10-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. BA1/2416/2025
Case Summary: BA1/2416/2025 - Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand The court granted bail to Devendra Kumar, who was accused under BNS sections involving abetment and causing grievous injury in FIR No. 951/2024. The court found merit in the applicant's arguments that no specific role causing fatal/grievous injury was attributed to him—the principal role was assigned to co-accused Azad (deceased). Critically, the applicant's name appeared only in supplementary statements, not initial victim statements, creating arguable inconsistencies in the prosecution case; moreover, medical evidence of a deep triangular lacerated wound was inconsistent with the alleged wooden stick assault. The court accordingly allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant on personal bond with two sureties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts