2025:UHC:1256 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 142 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Ruhani Sahani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA assisted by Mr. Rakesh Negi and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State. 3. Present applicant–Ferman is seeking bail in relation to Case Crime No.0541 of 2024, registered on the basis of FIR dated 08.12.2024, wherein, the present applicant Ferman, Tasleem alias Gullu and Gulbahar were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 109, of B.N.S and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and though, as per the FIR, the incident has been shown at midnight on 08.12.2024 at 01:25 AM, whereas the First Information Report was lodged in the morning at 10:08 AM and there is 09 hours delay and no reasons have been disclosed with regard to the delay. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that infact facts are that on 06.12.2024, the applicant had gone to Rishikesh for hearing of his case and while returning from there, the applicant-accused was illegally arrested by the Police of Raiwala and kept in illegal custody for two days and was beaten up brutally and also brought up to the place of occurrence and shot in his leg to show a fake encounter. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that even as per the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it appears that an attempt has been made by the police officials to pressurize the applicant to confess the guilt. 7. It is further submitted that no offences 2025:UHC:1256 are made out against the applicant. 8. On the previous date, the state Counsel was directed to get instruction in the matter and today Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA on written instruction informs to this Court that the applicant is a habitual offender and there are as many as 11 criminal cases pending in District Dehradun, Haridwar and District Saharanpur. 9. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further after gone through the written instruction of the State, this Court is of the view that since the applicant has previous criminal history of almost 11 cases of the same nature, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21.02.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:1256