IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1719 of 2024 Sh. Lakha Singh ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr.Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the complainant. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Lakha Singh, aged 19 years, son of Puran Singh, resident of Raja Colony, Ward No. 02, Transit Camp, Rudrapur, District Haridwar. 2. The applicant is currently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 77 of 2024, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. 3. As per the prosecution, the applicant, along with three other named individuals, allegedly surrounded the complainant’s younger brother, Rajat Gupta, due to prior enmity and attacked him with a knife, causing severe injuries to his windpipe and stomach. The injured was rescued by Kanhaiya Gupta, Yash Gupta, Kapil, and Manoj Gupta, who immediately took him to a local hospital. Due to the severity of his injuries, he was later referred to Ram Murti Hospital, Bareilly. 4. It is the contention of the applicant that the First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained 2 delay of over 24 hours. Furthermore, there is a discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence. According to the FIR, the incident occurred near Hardev Medical Store, approximately 1.5 km from the Transit Camp Police Station. However, the complainant, Rohit Gupta, has stated that the incident took place near Shankar Mishthan Shop. 5. It is the contention of the applicant that the complainant was not an eyewitness to the incident. According to his statements, he was informed about the incident by his brothers, Yash Gupta and Kanhaiya Gupta. Notably, Kanhaiya Gupta only saw the assailants fleeing from the crime scene and narrated the sequence of events. 6. Shaurya Gupta @ Kanhaiya Gupta, in his police statement dated 26.03.2023, stated that while he was accompanying the injured Rajat Gupta around 9:00 PM, they were approached by the accused—Lakha Singh, Sarpanch, and Anmol—on a motorcycle near Shankar Sweets Shop. Sarpanch allegedly pulled out a small knife and stabbed Rajat 4-5 times in the stomach and neck, causing him to collapse. Thereafter, Lakha Singh allegedly took the knife from Sarpanch and stabbed Rajat again in the stomach. 7. It is the contention of the applicant that the recovery of the weapon is stated to have taken place two months after the incident, from an open ground, at the instance of the accused. The knife was reportedly washed with water to remove bloodstains before being concealed under a stone. 3 8. The applicant also pointed out that the statement of the injured was not recorded. However, the court observes that, the statement of Dr. Harshit Agarwal, a medical surgeon at Ram Murti Hospital, Bareilly was recorded. Dr. Agarwal confirmed that Rajat Gupta, aged 19 years, was brought to the hospital in a critical condition with multiple knife wounds to the stomach and neck. He further stated that Rajat was unable to speak at the time due to the severity of his injuries, which were life-threatening, and that even after surgery, he would require prolonged medical care. 9. Furthermore, the prosecution submits that witness testimonies have consistently identified the applicant as an active participant in the crime. The accused was seen fleeing the crime scene, and forensic evidence, once available, is expected to further substantiate the charges. 10. The prosecution argues that the applicant has a prior criminal history and poses a risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses if released on bail. The gravity of the offence, coupled with the potential threat to public safety, makes him undeserving of bail. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Government Counsel for the State, and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the nature of the assault on the victim, coupled with his serious condition as indicated in the medical report, highlights the gravity of the offence. Eyewitness Shaurya Gupta has corroborated the complainant’s account, stating that the applicant 4 seized the knife from Sarpanch and proceeded to stab Rajat Gupta once again. Additionally, the victim’s mother, Smt. Chanchal Gupta, has reaffirmed this sequence of events. 12. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the available evidence, there exists a substantial risk that the applicant, if released on bail, may cause further harm to the victim and could attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. 13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 14. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 21.02.2025 NR/