2025:UHC:3797 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2129/2024 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Anushul Rathi is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 24.04.2024, bearing FIR No. 329 of 2024 registered at P.S. Manglore District Haridwar wherein present applicant along with six others were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 452, 120B, 504, 506, 34 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and one of the eye witness Anshul has not disclosed the name of the applicant. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Kunal, S/o Vipin has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 01.05.2025. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that even as per the prosecution, deceased died due to gunshot injury and the main role has been assigned to Nakul and only recovery of stick has been shown from the possession of the applicant. 5. Apart from this, he submits that charge sheet has already been filed and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant, and furthermore applicant has no previous criminal history. 6. On the other side, Mr. Bisht, learned A.G.A. submits that in fact the incident was caused on the instance of 2025:UHC:3797 the present applicant and not only this before commission of the said crime on the same date, the applicant with his associates reached in the house of the deceased and threaten him. Apart from this, he submits that the complainant herself is also the eye witness who disclosed the name of the applicant in the FIR and he further submits that the other eye witness Akshay also corroborates the statement of the complainant. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that though only stick has been shown to be recovered on pointing out of the applicant and deceased died due to gunshot injury but from the statement of the complainant-eye witness it reveals that the present applicant, in fact, is the main person on whose instance this incident was caused, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant does not deserve for bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 13.05.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:3797