No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS ABA No. 929 of 2025 Musarraf Ali ..... Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another .... Respondents Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sunder Singh Mehra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Ms. Shruti Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Applicant-Musarraf Ali seeks anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 0202 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2) and 191(3), 3(5) and 324(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Ramanagar, District Nainital. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that now the chargesheet has been filed and even in the chargesheet, the role of firing has been assigned to the other co- accused Ishan and no role has been assigned to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail from the Coordinate Bench of this Court and since the chargesheet has been filed and the trial is underway, there is no chance of tampering with the evidences or influencing the witnesses. 7. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application, but, has fairly admitted the fact that co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail from the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the complaint would submit that the complainant have informed her that even after lodging of the FIR and during investigation, the accused persons are threatening them to withdraw their complaint. 9. Be that as it may, even if there was any threat given by the accused to the complainant, then, that fact should have been brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer or to the concerned trial court, but, this fact is neither mentioned in the chargesheet nor in the instructions received by the State. 10. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail from the Coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹30,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/court concerned. In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation. (ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness/victim in any manner, whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court. 13. It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. (Alok Mahra J.) 18.06.2026 Ujjwal