2025:UHC:10555 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. 1427 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Through V.C.) 1. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Shivam Rana, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the informant through V.C. 4. The present applicant ‘Harish Saluja’ S/o Shri Sundar Das Saluja is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 28.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 199 of 2025, wherein, the present applicant with others have been charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 3(5), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. It is argued by learned senior counsel Mr. D.K. Sharma that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and therefore there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. So far as the present case is concerned it is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the persons who actually commit this crime are named in the FIR and not only this even during investigation the statement of the complainant was recorded but he has not disclosed the name of the present applicant. He argued that as per the prosecution the complainant was the eye witness of the incident but he has not disclosed the name of the applicant, which itself shows that the applicant was not involved in the commission of crime. He argued that in the present case five persons were charge-sheeted including who are named in the FIR. 6. He further argued that the house of the present applicant is just adjacent to the place of 2025:UHC:10555 occurrence and it is obvious that the location of mobile of the present applicant was found as per the CDR report at the place of occurrence and only on the basis of CDR the applicant has been chargesheeted though neither the complainant disclosed his name in the FIR nor in his statement. He also submits that not only this the statement of the complainant was also recorded after three months and even then the name of the applicant has not been disclosed. 7. He further argued that there was no telephonic conversation with the two other co- accused, who are named in the FIR and as such the charge-sheet has been filed in a very casual manner without collecting any credible evidence. 8. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder argued that after collecting all credible evidences the charge-sheet has been filed, however, he has not disputed this fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the complainant was the eye witness of the incident. He also fairly submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, at this stage there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the applicant. He also submits that the role of the accused, who are named in the FIR, are entirely different with the role of the present applicant and the present applicant is involved only due to his involvement in a conspiracy to commit the offence. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Shivam Rana adopt the argument of the learned Brief Holder Mr. Himanshu Sain. 10. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the charge-sheet has already been filed and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025, therefore, there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant, and as such, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant ‘Harish Saluja’ be released 2025:UHC:10555 on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 13. It is made clear that the grant of bail to the present applicant will not be treated as a precedent in respect of other co-accused. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 27.11.2025 PR