Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.275 of 2025
Sangat Singh @ Sangi
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:- Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Sangat Singh @ Sangi is in judicial custody in FIR No. 232 of 2024, under Sections 109(1), 121(2), 132, 191(3), 3(5), 111 of BNS, 2023 Sections 3/25 of Arms Act & 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3.
According to the FIR, on 06.09.2024 at 4:00 P.M. in the noon, the Forest Officials were on patrolling duty, when they saw some people cutting trees; when they were challenged, those persons opened fire. The applicant and co-accused Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmej Singh opened fire, due to which, many forest officials sustained injuries.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a false case. Some of the co-accused, who have also been assigned the role of firing, have been granted bail. The applicant was not present at the place on the date of incident. Hence, it is a case fit for bail.
5.
Learned State Counsel would submit that according to the statement of the informant and other injured witnesses, it is the applicant and co-accused Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmej Singh who opened
2 fire on them due to which they sustained injuries. It is supported by the medical evidence. The co-accused who have been granted bail, were not assigned the role of firing in the First Information Report.
6.
It is the case of opening fire on the forest officials. The witnesses have stated about the role of the applicant. It has also been stated that they sustained injuries due to firing that was made by the applicant.
7.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
8.
The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
26.06.2025 Ravi