SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 346 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Singh Mahra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Present applicant-Paramjeet Singh @ Dimpi is in judicial custody in relation to Case Crime No. 489 of 2024, registered on the basis of the FIR dated 05.10.2024 at P.S. Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar wherein the present applicant one Sarvan Singh @ Sidhu and one unknown person have been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) and 61 of BNS 2023. 5. As per the prosecution, wife of the deceased lodged the FIR with the allegation that the present applicant with his associates caused gun shot injury on vital parts of the deceased, due to which he died at the spot. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the incident took place on 05.10.2024 at 11:00 am but the FIR was lodged at 8:20 pm which falsify the prosecution story, since as per the prosecution there were the eye witnesses and if there were eye witnesses why the FIR was lodged at a belated stage. He further submits that name of the applicant is not mentioned in the inquest report. He further submits that as per the statement of the eye witness Sukhvinder Kaur two shots were fired at the deceased whereas there is only one bullet entry and one exit wound on the body of the deceased which falsify the entire story. 7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that one witness namely Jitendra Singh who was the witness of the inquest report at the time of preparing the inquest report met with Paramjit Kaur and Sukhvinder Kaur but they have not disclosed the name of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after investigation charge sheet has already been filed and therefore there is no requirement of custodial interrogation and, as such, the applicant be released on bail. 8. Per contra learned State counsel as well as learned senior advocate for the complainant submits that on pointing out of the present applicant a country made pistol was recovered from the applicant. They also submit that there are CCTV footages of the incident which prove presence of the present applicant at the time of the occurrence. Apart from this, the counsel for the complainant Ms. Puspa Joshi submits that there was a long enmity between the applicant and the deceased. 9. The post mortem report is also placed before this Court by the counsel for the complainant. I perused the same and as per the opinion of the Doctor, the death is caused due to ante mortem fire arm injury. 10. Apart from this, the counsel for the complainant submits that it is a day-light murder. 11. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration all the aspects, particularly, the fact that on pointing out of the applicant a country made pistol was recovered, and, furthermore, as per the post mortem report the death caused by the fire arm injury, this Court is of the view that applicant does not deserve bail. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 27.02.2025 Parul