2025:UHC:2279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 26th March, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 197 of 2024 Himanshu Rawat alias Makau …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present Bail Application has been moved by the applicant-Himanshu Rawat alias Makau, aged about 23 years (S/o Shri Ratan Singh Rawat, R/o Basant Vihar, Chitrakut Colony, Chorpani, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital). The applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 531 of 2023, registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the record. 3. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2023. 2025:UHC:2279 2 4. It has been alleged that on 18.12.2023 at approximately 5:30 PM, the applicant, along with co- accused persons, fired at the complainant’s son, Sahil Singh, near New Basti, causing him injuries. Another individual, Harpreet Singh, also sustained firearm injuries. The FIR was lodged on 19.12.2023. 5. During the investigation, statements of various witnesses, including the injured persons, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the applicant was arrested on 20.12.2023. A country-made pistol and two live cartridges were allegedly recovered from the applicant’s possession, and additional charges under the Arms Act were added. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations made in the FIR are not supported by medical or independent evidence. It has been contended that the victims did not suffer grievous injuries, and the medical examination reports do not establish any life-threatening wounds. The injuries sustained by the victims are burn injuries and not deep penetrating wounds, which suggests that the firing narrative is exaggerated. 7. Furthermore, Harpreet Singh, admitted that he heard a gunshot but could not identify who fired it. The learned counsel further points out that there are no independent witnesses to the alleged recovery of the firearm, and the police have planted the weapon to falsely implicate the applicant. 8. Additionally, one of the co-accused persons, Lucky @ Bhanu Pratap, has already been granted bail, and 2025:UHC:2279 3 the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing. The applicant has no previous criminal history; he is the sole earning member of his family; and he undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. 9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It has been submitted that multiple eyewitnesses have identified the applicant as the person, who fired the gun, causing injuries to Sahil Singh and Harpreet Singh. 10. Learned State Counsel further submits that the weapon used in the crime was recovered from the applicant’s possession. It has further been argued that, considering the gravity of the offense and the use of a firearm, the applicant does not deserve any leniency. The State has also contended that if the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with evidence and intimidate witnesses. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant has refuted the state’s claims, asserting that there is no direct evidence of him firing a gun and that the recovery of the firearm is highly questionable. The applicant also disputes the credibility of the witnesses, arguing that their statements lack specificity regarding his role in the incident. 12. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties and after careful perusal of the records, certain crucial aspects emerge. The medical evidence does not conclusively establish the state’s case, as the injuries sustained by the victims were not grievous or life- threatening. 2025:UHC:2279 4 13. The statements of the victims and witnesses contain material contradictions, with one victim admitting that he had no dispute with the applicant and another stating that he did not see who fired the gun. There are no independent witnesses to the alleged recovery of the firearm, which weakens the state’s case. 14. A co-accused in the matter has already been granted bail, and the principle of parity applies to the present applicant as well. The applicant has no prior criminal history, and the state has failed to establish any concrete apprehension that he would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released on bail. 15. Considering these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant be released on bail in Case Crime No. 531 of 2023, upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with the evidence or try to influence any witness in any manner; he shall not contact the victims or their families directly or indirectly; he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments; he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission; and he shall appear before the trial court on all dates fixed, failing which the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 26.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa0 8b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0 A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.03.27 15:23:10 +05'30'