2025:UHC:6364 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/657/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Present applicant Ankit Pathak, S/o Vinay Kumar is praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 26.01.2025, bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 18 of 2025, registered at P.S. Prem Nagar, District Dehradun wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 118(2) of BNS 2023 read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and, furthermore, he is a student of B.Tech 4th year. The injured who was the room- mate, is also pursuing his study in B.Tech. Apart from this he submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR, and, furthermore, charge sheet has already been filed in which cognizance has already been taken and the trial has been commenced and during trial the victim-injured and the complainant- father of the victim were declared hostile by the trial court on 09.07.2025 and 16.07.2025. Apart from this, he submits that applicant has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 26.01.2025. 6. On the other side, Mr. Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State has not disputed this fact that the trial has 2025:UHC:6364 already been commenced and the victim and his father-complainant were turned hostile in the trial court. The arguments of Mr. Sain, learned Brief Holder also supported by Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the complainant. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the victim and his father-complainant turned hostile and furthermore trial has already been commenced, and, as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Ankit Pathak be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21.07.2025 Parul