2025:UHC:4633 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.924 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant–Virendra Dugtal S/o Shri Nandan Singh, is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 15.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 0012 of 2025, Police Station Dharchula, District Pithoragarh for the offences punishable under Section 115(2), 352, 74 and 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and, in fact, the applicant as well as victim/respondent both are married having children, however, the victim is a widow and they known to each other since last 04 years. 5. Earlier, a dispute was also arisen in between both of them, but the same was amicably settled, however, subsequent thereto, the FIR has been lodged with the allegation that the present applicant is repeatedly harassing the victim. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this fact is evident from the FIR itself that the victim known to the applicant since last 04 years and the victim is a widow having two children and earlier their dispute was settled, therefore, since both of them known to each other since last four years, the implication of the present applicant at a such a belated stage that too 2025:UHC:4633 after four years appears to be a malicious prosecution with some ulterior purposes and motives. 7. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and keeping in view of the fact that both of them known to each other, the present applicant be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other side, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder, pointed out that during investigation one more penal provision i.e. Section 64 of BNS, 2023 has been added, however, she has not disputed this fact that earlier the dispute in between both of them was settled and they known to each other since last 04 years. She further submits that the investigation is going on, and, therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, then there may be a possibility that he may influence the investigation and suggests that some stringent conditions be imposed upon the applicant, if the applicant is enlarged on bail. 9. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the applicant and the victim known to each other since last four years and their earlier dispute was also resolved, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail but since learned State counsel, Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, suggests that since the investigation is still going on, some stringent conditions be imposed, this Court is of the view that the suggestion as given by learned Brief Holder, is really appreciable, in view of the submission as advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any 2025:UHC:4633 opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant, namely, Virendra Dugtal, 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. 12. It is made clear that after being released on bail, the applicant will not make any attempt to harass the victim and will cooperate with investigation, failing which, the prosecution is directed to apprise this Court by moving an application for cancellation of bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 06.06.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:4633