2025:UHC:6242 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2 No.220 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned DAG along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the Applicant Shafi Ahmad, who is in judicial custody in FIR No.375 of 2022, under Sections 364A, 120B and 506 IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. First bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 01.05.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.06.2022; that, the cross-examination of the complainant was done on 10.12.2024 in which, he has stated that, when his daughter went missing from home, he went to the Police Station, Rudrapur regarding her missing report, but the police did not register any report and the police kept his phone in the Police Station till 12.06.2024. He has further stated that he did not go to Sanjayban and he has no information of visiting Sanjayban 2025:UHC:6242 by anyone; that, none of the accused was arrested in his presence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statement given by the complainant is totally contradictory to the story of the prosecution, which has been setup by the prosecution to falsely implicate him in the instant crime, inasmuch as, the prosecutrix stated that the Police have taken the complainant along with the co-accused to Sanjayban, where the accused have asked the complainant to come with ransom on the mobile phone of the complainant, which was received by the complainant in the presence of the police party. 7. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail. 9. The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.07.2025 BS