2025:UHC:3341 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/588/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned Assistant Government Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant – Kunal, S/o Vipin, who is languishing in jail since 06.08.2024, is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 24.04.2024 bearing FIR No. 0329 of 2024, registered at Police Station – Mangalore, District – Haridwar, which was lodged for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the FIR and in total seven persons were named in the FIR and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against only four persons and one of the accused was exonerated during investigation and subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet was filed implicating present applicant and two other persons for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is no direct evidence against the applicant and he has been implicated only on the basis of statement of one of the eye witnesses Akshay. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, there are four eye witnesses i.e. complainant, wife of the deceased, Harendra Rathi and Akshay. He submits that neither the complainant nor the other eye witnesses have disclosed the name of the present applicant and only Akshay has disclosed the name of the applicant. He further submits that applicant does not belong to the same village and he belongs to different village – Thithki, which is 26 kms. away from the place of incident. 6. Apart from this, he submits that since the 2025:UHC:3341 charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant has no previous criminal history. He further submits that bail application of other co-accused Nakul has already been rejected but specific role has been assigned to him since he caused gunshot injury to the deceased, causing his death. He further submits that bail applications of other co-accused Vidhu Rathi and Kulbeer have already been rejected by this Court. 7. Learned State Counsel has not disputed this fact that since the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant has no previous criminal history. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant has no previous criminal history, and the role as assigned to the present applicant is entirely different to those whose bail application is rejected. This Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant “Kunal, S/o Vipin” be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 01.05.2025. SKS 2025:UHC:3341