No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1202 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. (through video conferencing) 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Vishal Kumar Nautiyal, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The applicant – Pradyuman, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/ Case Crime No. 0387 of 2024, under Sections 307, 341 and 506 of IPC, registered at P.S.- Laksar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. In the present case, an FIR was lodged on 26.04.2024 by the brother of the injured wherein eight persons, including the applicant, were named. As per the contents of the FIR, on the evening of 20.04.2024, when the injured was returning from the marriage, then the applicant alongwith co-accused, having past enmity with the injured, beat the injured victim with iron rods, sticks and knife, due to which, the victim suffered serious injuries. As per the FIR, the incident took place near to the shop of one Ankit. Injured was first taken to the Government Hospital, Laksar, then to Government Hospital, Haridwar, from where he was referred to Government Doon Medical College, Dehradun and finally the injured victim got discharged from Mahant Indiresh Hospital, Dehradun. CT-Scan was conducted on the head of the injured on which fracture was found. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there are contradictions in the contents of the FIR and the statement of the eye-witnesses and injured inasmuch as eye-witness Sumit has submitted that when injured came to his shop for repairing his mobile, then three persons came in motorcycle, out of which, one was sitting in the motorcycle and two persons came, whose faces were covered, they beat the injured victim with sticks and after beating him, they fled in the motorcycle. It is further contended that as per the statement of the eye- witness, there were only three persons and he was able to identify only one person named Nitin. In the FIR, it is mentioned that there were other witnesses also, who saw the incident at the spot, but, the statements of all those witnesses is that they came only after the fight was over. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has been implicated on the basis of hearsay evidence. It is further submitted that he is in custody since 15.02.2025 and trial is underway. It is also submitted that there are 15 prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. 9. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there are contradictions in the contents of the FIR and the statements of the eye- witnesses and injured, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 25.02.2026 Ujjwal