IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No. 2546 of 2024 Gaurav Bisht alias Parul ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Gaurav Bisht alias Parul (male), aged 29 years, son of Late Satendra Singh, resident of House No. 13, Block 1, Nadi Rispana Road, Karanpur, Police Station Dalanwala, Dehradun. The applicant is presently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 186 of 2024, registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, for offences punishable under Sections 125, 326(g), 62, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand, pursued the records. 3. The applicant contends that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, raising doubts regarding the veracity of the allegations. He argues that no direct eyewitness has identified him at the scene of the crime, and the case against him primarily relies on CCTV footage, where his identity remains disputed. 4. The applicant further submits that the complainant’s son, Nitin, who has allegedly identified with him, has a history of drug addiction and holds a personal grudge against him due to a previous dispute involving the applicant’s wife. It is contended that the alleged act did not result in an explosion or any injury. Therefore, the stringent provisions invoked under Sections 326(g) and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita do not sustain against him. 2 5. The applicant pleads that he has no previous criminal antecedents and that his continued incarceration is unwarranted. It is further submitted that he is a permanent resident of Dehradun and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court, including not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. 6. The State, opposing the bail application, contends that the applicant has been clearly identified through CCTV footage as well as witness statements. It is submitted that the investigation has confirmed that a bottle containing an inflammable substance was thrown inside the complainant’s residence, with a partially burned wick recovered from the scene, indicating a deliberate attempt to cause destruction. 7. It is argued, on behalf of the state, that irrespective of whether an explosion took place, the very act of throwing a petrol bomb into a residential premises constitutes a grave offence with serious implications for public safety. The material on record establishes a premeditated criminal act, and granting bail at this stage would pose a risk to the complainant and the witnesses. 8. The State further submits that considering the gravity of the offence, the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out. The applicant has not been able to present any cogent reason to discredit the case against him at this stage, and his release may lead to a threat to public order. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State and upon careful consideration of the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature. The act of hurling a petrol bomb into residential premises constitutes the grave offence of arson, which is not only a criminal act of destruction but also endangers human life and public safety. Arson, by its very nature, is a heinous crime that carries severe legal consequences due to its potential for causing extensive harm. 10. Regardless of whether an explosion occurred, the inherent danger posed by such an act cannot be understated. The CCTV footage and witness testimonies prima facie establish the applicant’s involvement, 3 and the recovery of a partially burned wick further corroborates the State's case. 11. At this stage, no reasonable ground has been presented to disbelieve the evidence collected against the applicant. Given the gravity of the offence and the potential risk to witnesses and the complainant’s family, this Court finds no merit in granting bail. The likelihood of the applicant interfering with the investigation, influencing witnesses, or committing a similar offence cannot be ruled out. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve the relief of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application has been rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.02.2025