2025:UHC:10383 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1686/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pande along with Mr. Devender Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Applicant–Avinash, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 237 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352 B.N.S. registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused alleging that on 13.06.2025 at about midnight, two named persons, namely, Chandan Sagar and Chotu, along with 15–20 unknown persons, forcibly entered the complainant’s transport office, dragged Sikandar out, assaulted him, and, assuming him to be dead, fled from the spot. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that the prosecution has not attributed any specific role to the applicant; that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; that no Test Identification Parade was conducted; that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about 11 days without satisfactory explanation; that the applicant has no motive to commit the alleged offence; that, the present F.I.R. is a counterblast to Case Crime No. 216 of 2025 lodged against the complainant’s son 2025:UHC:10383 and others for the murder of one Sarim. 7. It is further submitted that the CCTV footage does not show the applicant and only a vague silhouette is visible; that despite the allegation of an attack by about 22 persons, only a single injury was found on the person of Sikandar, rendering the prosecution story improbable; that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital with no likelihood of absconding; and that the court below rejected his bail application vide order dated 19.08.2025. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application on the ground that serious allegations of assault have been levelled against the applicant. However, he concedes that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that the court below had rejected his bail application on 19.08.2025. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court notes that there is an unexplained delay of nearly 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the CCTV footage does not depict the presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 20.11.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:10383