2025:UHC:10809 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 1 8 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Tejas Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Applicant–Salman, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 151 of 2025, under Sections 74, 75(2), 76 of B.N.S. registered at Police Station Kotwali Kotdwara, District Pauri Garhwal has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Initially, an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on 09.06.2025 alleging that on 08.06.2025 at around 8:45 P.M., while the informant was purchasing medicine from Balaji Medical Store, the applicant came from behind, grabbed the informant with both hands, and made certain objectionable gestures. It is further alleged that upon the informant’s screams, a crowd gathered and apprehended the applicant, after which the police took him to the hospital. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. is false and fabricated. In reality, the applicant was brutally assaulted by the male friends of the informant when he was returning home. The F.I.R. has been lodged merely to shield the informant and her friends. It is argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Although the alleged incident occurred on 08.06.2025 at 8:45 P.M., the F.I.R. was lodged at 00.43 hours on 09.06.2025—nearly four hours later. Despite the F.I.R. having been registered 2025:UHC:10809 only 20 meters away from the place of occurrence, it was not lodged at the nearest police station, but, no explanation has been provided by the informant for this delay or for filing the report at a distant location, which casts doubt upon the prosecution story. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 09.06.2025. The court below rejected his bail application on 30.06.2025. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Pauri Garhwal, eliminating any possibility of absconding; that, as the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application. However, he fairly admits that the F.I.R. was lodged with delay, despite the place where it was filed being merely 20 meters from the spot of occurrence, rather than at the nearest police station. He also acknowledges that the applicant has been in custody since 09.06.2025 and that the bail application as earlier rejected on 30.06.2025. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, 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 the grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number upon his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ ( Alok Mahr a, J.) 04.12.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:10809