HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 90 of 2025 Nikhil ........Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the informant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Nikhil is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 507 of 2024 dated 20.06.2024, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.02.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 11/12-06-2024 at about 12- 12:30 in the night, the applicant along with other co-accused assaulted and attacked the injured Ankit and others and it is the applicant, who opened fire, which hit the injured Ankit. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is delayed by nine days; there is no plausible explanation for it; the prosecution story gets falsified by the General Diary Entry dated 12.06.2024, G.D. Report No. 4, time 04:36 a.m. of police station Manglore, District Haridwar, which records that at that moment the injured had stated he did not know as to who opened the fire; they 2 were taking meals at a Dhaba. In addition, it is also argued that if any CCTV footage is taken, that has not been forwarded for forensic examination. 6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the first bail application was rejected after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant; there is no fresh ground; no witness has been yet been examined. He submits that in CCTV footages, it can be seen that the applicant and other co-accused were assaulting the injured, though, he admits that it is not visible in the CCTV footages as to who opened the fire, because, it is argued by the learned counsel for the informant that in between a truck crossed the site and the incident could not be captured in the CCTV footages. It is also submitted that the injured Ankit has categorically stated that it is the applicant, who had opened fire. He has also explained the delay that as he was injured and was referred to many hospitals, FIR could not be lodged. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that the injured has supported the prosecution case. 8. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 9. The FIR is quite delayed in this case. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant was not in a position to speak after the incident. It is the prosecution case that the fire hit on the thigh of the injured. He was referred to the hospital. Soon after the incident, as per GD Entry Report No. 4 of 12.06.2024, at 04:36 a.m., a Police 3 Inspector visited the spot and had inquired from the injured Ankit, who had stated that they were having meals at a Dhaba and thereafter a fight ensued between them and the applicant and the co-accused; he does not know as to who opened fire. 10. In view of these facts coupled with the delay that has occurred in lodging of the FIR, 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 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 03.07.2025 Avneet/