No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1206 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. The applicant – Naveen Kukreti, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/ FIR No. 01 of 2024, under Sections 109, 117, 351(3) of BNS, registered at Patti Gagwadsyun-4, District Pauri Garhwal, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant, who happens to be the cousin of the applicant, wherein, it has been stated that the applicant/ accused at about 05: 00 p.m. on 12.11.2024, brutally assaulted the injured causing injuries in the head and face, which are life threatening injuries. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is a delay of five days in lodging of the FIR; there is no eye- witness to the incident; as they belonged to the same family, they were having a land dispute between them; Revenue Police arrested him on 18.11.2024 and beat him very severely in the custody against which sister of the applicant has filed an application under Section 175 of BNSS, which is pending consideration before the Court of CJM, Pauri Garhwal; Revenue Police wanted confessional statement from the applicant, but, he refused. He was released on the same day in the evening and he surrendered on 20.01.2025 before the court of learned CJM, Pauri Garhwal. Since, then he is in custody. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that Revenue Inspector (Patwari) inspected the site of the incident, but, did not find any hammer as there were bushes in the area. It is further submitted that the hammer, which is alleged to be the weapon used in the crime, was recovered on 20.03.2025. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the applicant has committed a very serious offence, hence, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 17.11.2025 Ujjwal