HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application No. 2139 of 2024 Gurmit Singh @ Geji ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 232 of 2024, under Section 109(1), 121(2), 132, 191(3), 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, P.S. Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The informant in the instant case of Range Officer, Forest. According to the FIR, upon an information having been received, the informant along with his subordinates reached at the spot and found that the applicant and the co-accused were cutting trees. They were challenged by the forest personnels, but, according to the FIR, the accused started firing, due to which the forest personnels sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR is delayed by a day; nothing has been shown as to how the witnesses did identify the applicant; the applicant was not present at the spot; merely because there were some cases pending against the applicant, he has falsely been implicated in the present case. 2 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is the applicant, who opened fire on the Forest Officials and the injured has categorically stated that he knew the applicant. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 7. The Forest Range Officer is the informant in the instant case. He has given statement to the Investigating Officer. According to him, he knew the applicant and on the date of incident, he had spotted the applicant and the co-accused cutting the trees. There are witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. Medical injury report also finds corroboration. As per the prosecution, the applicant was illegally cutting the trees. But, when stopped from doing so, he opened fire. It is a very serious case. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. The bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 24.02.2025 Avneet/