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. 956 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and Ms. Babita Jalal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. 3. Present applicant Khurshid is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 08.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 013 of 2025 at P.S. I.T.I. District Udham Singh Nagar which was lodged against the unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) in which charge sheet has been filed under Section 309(4), 317(2) and 3(5) of BNS 2023. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and submits that charge sheet has already filed on 04.04.2025 by adding more penal provision i.e. Section 317(2)and Section 3(5) of BNS 2023. He further submits that since charge sheet has already been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated which is evident from the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he was called upon by the Jaspur Police for interrogation and thereafter implicated falsely. He further submits that no recovery was made from the applicant and so called recovery as shown is false and planted one and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He further submits that the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial court merely being influenced with the fact that there are 23 matters pending against him and on the other side, it is submitted by the learned State Counsel that the applicant is a habitual offender and after this incident another incident was happened with regard to the same nature of offence in which an FIR was lodged on 21.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 36 of 2025 at P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar in which the trial court has rejected the bail application. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further after taking into consideration the past history of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is a habitual offender, and, as such, he does not deserve for bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 13.06.2025 Parul