2025:UHC:11009 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 9 0 1 / 2 0 2 5 Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliy al, J. 1. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi and Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Present applicant Narendra, S/ o Ghasita is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 25.09.2024, bearing FI R/ Case Crime No. 0802 of 2024, registered at P.S. Manglore District Haridwar wherein as many as 8 persons including the present applicant has been implicate and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 190(2), 193(3), 651(2), 352 and 61(2) of BNS 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the charge sheet has already been filed and trial has been commenced, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. She further argued that applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 64 years and applicant also sustained grievous injuries in the said incident that too on the most vital part of the body, i.e., head. She further argued that there is rivalry in between two political group of the village and the dispute is in respect of the land which belongs to the Gram Panchayat. She further argued that co- accused Aditya, Joginder, Saurabh and Sushil have been granted bail by this Court, therefore, the present applicant 2025:UHC:11009 also deserves the benefit of parity, since, same role has been assigned to co- accused Sushil who has already been granted bail. She further argued that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024 and the applicant has a criminal history of two cases, however, in both the cases the applicant is already enlarged on bail. She further argued that Ravindra himself disclosed that present applicant and Sushil caused him injuries by Lathi. She further submits that so far as deceased is concerned he died due to injuries caused by the axe which was not caused by the applicant. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed and certain photographs of each of the accused have also been enclosed. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant along with photographs and pen-drive containing video clip of the incident. 7. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant request that the Court may also go through with the pen-drive and on her request this Court seen the video-clip, contain in the pen drive, of incident though in the presence of Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General in the Court and after seeing the video clip and other material this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is rejected. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) 1 0 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Parul 2025:UHC:11009