2025:UHC:10606 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 0 7 4 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Tapan Singh and Mr. Avneesh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Devender Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicants–Ankush and Sachin, who are in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 26 of 2025, registered under Sections 61(2), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, have sought their release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 12.01.2025, at about 6:00 P.M., the informant’s brother, Vineet Kumar, along with a friend, had gone to the market to purchase vegetables. While there, he received a phone call on his mobile, and shortly thereafter, three boys allegedly arrived on a motorcycle near the Birampuri Vriddha Ashram gate and took him away. Since that time, Vineet’s mobile remained switched off and his whereabouts were unknown. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. He submits that the names of the applicants do not find mention in the body of the F.I.R.; that the applicants were allegedly arrested on 15.01.2025 at about 9:30 P.M., whereas the F.I.R. itself was registered only on 16.01.2025 at 2:58 P.M.; that despite this, the arrest memo bears the F.I.R. number, giving rise to a serious doubt as to how the police could have recorded the F.I.R. number prior to the actual registration of the F.I.R.; and that no reasons for arrest have been recorded in the arrest memo, where the police have merely tick- marked the columns without assigning proper justification. 7. Learned State counsel, while opposing the bail application, submits that a missing report concerning Vineet Kumar (now deceased) was 2025:UHC:10606 received on 12.01.2025 and an entry was made in the General Diary; that during investigation, the dead body of the missing person was recovered. However, he fairly admits that the applicants have been in custody since 15.01.2025, have no criminal antecedents, and that the arrest memo indeed contains the F.I.R. number. 8. In response, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that this Court had earlier directed the State to produce the relevant G.D. entry and the recovery memo. In compliance, the State has produced the first G.D. entry dated 15.01.2025 at 5:33 p.m. regarding the missing complaint; however, there is no G.D. entry regarding the arrest of the applicants; that, the next G.D. entry is dated 16.01.2025 at 2:36 a.m. regarding the arrest, whereas the arrest memo itself records that the applicants were arrested on 15.01.2025 at 9:30 p.m. According to the counsel for the applicants, this sequence further strengthens the contention that the applicants were arrested prior to the registration of the F.I.R. 9. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants have no criminal history and are in judicial custody since 15.01.2025; that, the charge sheet has already been filed against the applicants as well as co-accused Jonny @ Anant; and that there is, therefore, no likelihood of the applicants tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 10. Having considered the submissions made by both parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ( Alok Mahr a, J.) 28.11.2025 Mamta