2025:UHC:10371 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 / 2 1 4 4 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Nipushmola Joshi and Manisha Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pande along with Mr. Devender Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. A delay condonation application along with an affidavit has been filed, praying that the delay in filing the counter affidavit be condoned. The cause shown is found sufficient. The delay in filing the counter affidavit is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. 4. Applicant–Manish Bhatia, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 584 of 2025, under Section 308 (5) B.N.S. registered at Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged alleging therein that on 25.08.2025 at about 7:30 a.m. and again on 26.08.2025 at about 1:17 p.m., an unknown caller made calls from Mobile No. 7251826098 to the mobile phone of the informant’s elder son, Rahul Mittal, demanding a ransom of ₹5,00,000. 7. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is argued that there is an unexplained delay of 5–6 days in lodging the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., and during investigation it only emerged that the applicant had used his mobile number 983737245 to recharge the mobile number allegedly used in the 2025:UHC:10371 commission of the offence. It is contended that the said mobile number is registered in the name of one Sushil Kumar, resident of Nand Nagar, Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh, and that the applicant, being a small-scale vendor of SIM cards and mobile recharges, routinely used his commercial number to recharge various mobile numbers. 8. She would further submit that the said number was a commercial number issued by the service provider specifically to retailers. It is also submitted that the SIM allegedly used in the offence has not been recovered from the applicant; that, the alleged recovery of a mobile phone from the applicant is false and fabricated. It is contended that the recovered device has no nexus with the alleged crime. 9. It is urged that the applicant is a resident of Dehradun, and the Call Detail Records also show the location of the alleged calls to be in Dehradun. However, the prosecution claims recovery of the mobile phone from near Police Station Kotwali Manglaur. It is argued that such recovery is highly improbable, as no person involved in such an offence would continue to carry a crucial incriminating article such as the alleged mobile phone near the police station concerned, especially when he had sufficient time to discard or destroy it. Thus, the prosecution version and the alleged recovery are doubtful and appear fabricated. 10. Learned senior counsel lastly submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.09.2025; that, he has no previous criminal antecedents; and that his bail application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 28.10.2025. She further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Dehradun and there is no likelihood of his absconding. In view of these facts, she fairly concedes that the applicant may be considered for grant of bail. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application, submitting that the location of the mobile 2025:UHC:10371 phone used in the alleged offence corresponds to Manglaur and that the applicant is shown to have visited the location twice around the relevant time. However, she fairly admits that Mobile Number 7251826098 is registered in the name of Sushil Kumar and that the applicant, being a retailer, had issued the SIM in 2018. He further admits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 14.09.2025 and that his bail application was rejected by the court below on 28.10.2025. 12. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; that the incriminating mobile number stands registered in the name of a third party; that the prosecution case rests primarily on the allegation that the applicant, in his capacity as a retailer, had recharged the said number; and that the alleged recovery of the mobile phone from the applicant is itself in dispute. Without entering into the final merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 13. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 14. 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 Mahr a, J.) 20.11.2025 Mamta