IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2286 of 2024 Kapil ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Kapil, who is currently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 0359/2024, registered at Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. The said FIR was lodged on 09.08.2024 under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 351(3) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State and have perused the case records. 3. The allegations against the applicant, as per the FIR, are that on 09.08.2024, at approximately 1:31 PM, the complainant, Komal, was on her way to Patanjali Wellness for work when an unknown individual intercepted her. It is alleged that the said person attempted to molest her with wrongful intent and further placed a firearm on her head, threatening to shoot her if she did not engage in conversation with him. Upon hearing her cries for help, local villagers, including Akshay and Pradeep, rushed to the scene and successfully overpowered the accused. The accused was then 2 handed over to the police along with the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that he was not arrested at the scene of the alleged crime and has been wrongly named in the FIR. Furthermore, the counsel submits that no independent witness exists to corroborate the alleged recovery of the firearm from the applicant. It is further pointed out that the FIR does not mention the exact time of the incident, which casts doubts on the prosecution's version. 5. Additionally, the learned counsel for the applicant asserts that there was a prior financial transaction between the applicant and the complainant, which led to a monetary dispute amounting to Rs. 2,000/-. This, according to the applicant, forms the basis of the present complaint, which is fabricated and motivated. The applicant has also placed reliance on his clean antecedents, stating that he has no prior criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 09.08.2024 and that there are no allegations of any attempt on his part to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. 6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant was apprehended at the scene of the crime by independent witnesses. It is argued that the complainant’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 3 Sanhita, 2023, remain consistent with the allegations in the FIR. The State further relies on statements made by the complainant's father, Sukhchand, and the recovery witness, Head Constable Vinod Chauhan, both of whom support the prosecution's case. The learned counsel for the State submits that the recovery of a firearm from the applicant is an important aspect of the investigation, and the nature of the offence is such that it instills fear in society. Given these circumstances, the possibility of the applicant intimidating witnesses or interfering with the trial process cannot be ruled out. 7. Upon a careful evaluation of the submissions made by both parties and the material available on record ,the Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. 8. As per the FIR, when the complainant Komal was on her way to “Patanjali Wellness” for work, it is stated that she was intercepted by an unknown individual.It is further alleged in the FIR that the applicant is said to have attempted to molest the complainant with wrongful intention by putting a firearm on her head. The witness is said to have been under duress, still there is a mention that she cried for help, which is unusual under the given circumstances. As per the records and arguments, certain facts have surfaced and are subject to trial, that the applicant and complainant had a financial transaction between them. That there was a monetary dispute amounting to INR 2000; that would indicate the fact that the applicant and complainant knew each other 4 beforehand, still the complainant didn’t disclose the name of the applicant in the FIR. 9. The applicant has been in custody since 09.08.2024. The prosecution has not provided any cogent material to demonstrate that the applicant poses a flight risk. Additionally, the applicant has no previous criminal record, which weighs in his favour and there is no specific material before the Court to indicate that may apply an indication or an apprehension to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence; if he is enlarged in bail. 10. It is also observed that the recovery of the alleged firearm is based primarily on the testimony of police witnesses, with no independent corroboration. While the prosecution has argued the seriousness of the offence, the Court must balance this aspect with the fundamental principles governing the grant of bail, including the presumption of innocence and the necessity of incarceration at the pre-trial stage. 11. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that continued incarceration of the applicant at this stage would not serve the ends of justice , and finds it to be a fit case for bail. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed, and the applicant, Kapil, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 5 13. With the above observations and directions, the present bail application stands disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 04.03.2025