Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Outcome
Bail refused
The third bail application is rejected
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 307, 504, 506
- Arms Act, 1959
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.
Judgment
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 359 of 2021, under Sections 307, 504 & 506 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected on merits on 05.01.2023.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.
Operative part
The third bail application is rejected.
05.08.2025 (Ravindra Maithani, J) Jitendra
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The third bail application is rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 504, 506; Arms Act, 1959.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.