HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2180 of 2024 Mohit Khatri …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.221 of 2024, dated 19.07.2024, under Sections 109, 115(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 (1-B)A of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 17.07.2024, at about 02:30 PM, the accused started abusing the injured Nazakat. When Nazakat objected to it, the applicant and the co-accused, who happens to be the father of the applicant, started marpeet with Nazakat and his relative Naseem. The FIR records that thereafter, on exhortation, the accused opened fired on Nazakat. Fire was also shot on Naseem. They both sustained injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant is a sufferer; he did not commit any offence; he was in shop, when he asked one of his workers Nazakat to work properly, he resisted to it and then he called other labourers, who 2 started abusing the applicant and his family; a crowd gathered; somebody fired in the crowd; the applicant with his father locked inside their shop so that they may be saved from attack of the crowd, still they were beaten up; police took them out from their shop. It is argued that the wife of the applicant when the applicant was in custody filed an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS, 2023”), based on which, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against the informant and other witnesses. It is argued that the recovery of firearm is false; compliance of Section 105 of BNSS, 2023 has not been made. In fact, it is argued that when the applicant was arrested, according to the Police, the key of the shop was recovered from him. In such eventuality, it is argued that it is impossible that on the next date the applicant has opened his shop with the same key. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant has fired on two injured. They both sustained firearms injury. The firearm was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report confirms that the cartridges that were recovered from the place of incident were fired from the firearm which was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel would submit that Nazakat and Naseem, both were injured. 6. It is true that there are cross case. The FIR was so lodged after the incident. The injured in the instant case have sustained firearm injuries. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report confirms that the cartridge cases recovered from the place of 3 incident were fired through firearm allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant. 7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 8. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.05.2025 Sanjay