2025:UHC:9351 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 No. 1976 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajeev Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Ashraf’ S/o Latif is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 27.05.2025 bearing FIR No. 163 of 2025 P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital, which was lodged against the unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4) of BNS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 31.05.2025 and the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation and be released on bail. 5. He submits that the applicant has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and all the offences are triable by Magistrate. Apart from this, he submits that the other co- accused namely Bhanu S/o Lekhraj have already been granted bail by this court on 24.09.2025 and claims parity. In paragraph 12 of the bail application he has disclosed about the criminal history by submitting that the present applicant was convicted in relation to FIR No. 33 of 2021 for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC. In addition to this, he further disclosed about three other criminal cases, i.e. FIR Nos. 102 of 2025, 125 of 2025 and 120 of 2025 and in all these three FIRs the applicant is bailed out. In support of this, the orders have already been enclosed. 6. Apart from this, he submits that the recovery as shown is a joint recovery and the chargesheet has been filed in a very routine and 2025:UHC:9351 cursory manner. He further submits that the informant was examined by the Trial Court as PW1. 7. On the other side, learned State counsel have vehemently oppose the bail application by submitting that the applicant has a long criminal history in the State of Uttarakhand as well as in the State of U.P. and that too relates to the similar nature of allegations. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General, apprise to this court on instructions that as many as there are 24 cases in the State of Uttarakhand and 10 cases in the State of U.P. Mr. G.S. Sandhu submits that taking into consideration the long criminal history in two states, it clearly reveals that the applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, in such a situation he does not deserve for bail. 8. Mr. G.S. Sandhu also suggest that taking into consideration the long criminal history and further taking into consideration that in one case he has been convicted which he has disclosed in paragraph 12 of the bail application it is proper that the Trial Court be directed to expedite the Trial. 9. I found force on submission as advanced by Mr. G.S. Sandhu and further taking into consideration long criminal history of the applicant that too relates to the similar nature of allegation, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. So far as the grant of bail to the other co- accused is concerned only two cases were registered against that person in which he is already bailed out. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 12. Simultaneously, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial as early as possible. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.10.2025 PR 2025:UHC:9351