2025:UHC:7647 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 28th AUGUST, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.1542 of 2025 Vineet .....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate. . Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The applicant Vineet is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 126(2), 131, 309(4), 317(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 in Case Crime No 459 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. 2. As per the First Information Report dated 20.06.2025, four masked men restrained the informant and snatched his mobile phone at about 20:20 hrs. on 13.06.2025. They also beat him. He has received injury of the knife. 3. Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent. 1 2025:UHC:7647 4. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that the applicant was not involved in the said incident. He has been falsely implicated. Two co-accused of the similar role, have been granted bail by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and, he is in judicial custody since 22.06.2025. A knife is shown recovered from the possession of the applicant. The said recovery was planted. No independent witness was present at the time of the alleged recovery. 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, 2 2025:UHC:7647 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. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant – Vineet 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:28.08.2025 Shiv/ 3