No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 2481 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant – Gagandeep @ Gaganratanpuriya, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 334 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3 and 25 of Arms Act, registered at P.S.- Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, prior to this FIR, earlier another FIR being FIR No. 478 of 2025 was lodged under Sections 109, 125, 351(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 61 of BNS, in which, the present applicant and many other persons have been named. The genesis of this FIR rises from the above FIR. As per the prosecution story, after alleged shooting in the Election of Students Union, the applicant alongwith other three co-accused, was trying the hide from the Police and on information being received from the informant, they were apprehended near Shakti Farm in a car and when the Police tried to stop the car, they drive the car away. The present applicant shot fire on the Police party with his 315 bore country-made pistol. The applicant was also shot fire in the left leg by the bullet shot by the Police team. He was arrested from the spot and recovery of 315 bore pistol and one cartridge was also recovered from him. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; that all other co- accused have been granted bail by the court below; that with regard to the FIR relating to the shooting in the Election of Students Union, CCTV would reveal that applicant was not present on the site and he was not seen shooting from his firearm; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.09.2025 and the trial is yet underway; that the applicant is a local resident and if released on bail, will not misuse the same and will furnish the bail surety as per the satisfaction of this Court. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 17.02.2026 Ujjwal