2025:UHC:8748 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.224 of 2025 Kashmeer Singh ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. Applicant-Kashmeer Singh is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 in Case Crime No.100 of 2025, registered at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. The First Bail Application (No.1214 of 2025) was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.08.2025. 3. According to the First Information Report dated 18.04.2025, on 18.04.2025 at around 8:30 o’ 1 2025:UHC:8748 clock, the informant was sitting at his vegetable shop. The applicant came there and attacked him with a sword with intention to kill him. The informant received injury on his hand. 4. Heard Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent. 5. Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. On 25.04.2025, an FIR (No.111 of 2025) was registered against the present applicant with almost same allegation. The date and time of the alleged incident in both the FIR are almost same. The applicant has been implicated in two different incidents at a same date and time. As per the FIRs one incident happened in village Aoudali and another incident occurred in village Sadhunagar. A person cannot be present physically in two different places at the same time. 6. Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, he is in custody since 18.04.2025. 2 2025:UHC:8748 7. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, has opposed the second bail application. 8. 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 or trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 9. 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. 10. The Bail Application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Kashmeer Singh 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:26.09.2025 Neha 3 NEHA BISHT Digitally signed by NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008e9a4a8 038ee7326b08b2d0e018b01be753f014 836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB967706 8452F32DE6BA960BFE64D819EE44CA9 CCE487B2FE0F92, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.09.26 18:05:48 +05'30'