2025:UHC:7500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 25th AUGUST, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.1529 of 2025 Karan .....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate with Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The applicant-Karan is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 117(2), 221 and Section 121(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.282 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. 2. According to the First Information Report dated 12.07.2025, the informant Neeraj Kumar, the In- charge Inspector was on traffic duty on 11.07.2025. Some Kavadis threw stones, as a result, he got injured. The First Information Report was registered against unknown persons. 3. Heard Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent. 1 2025:UHC:7500 4. Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate, submitted that the applicant is an innocent person. He was not present on the spot. He has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of Mangolpuri, New Delhi, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, he is in judicial custody since 12.07.2025. 5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally. 6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 2 2025:UHC:7500 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Karan be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:25.08.2025 Shiv/ 3