2025:UHC:6451 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 Nos. 960 & 962 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J 1. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State. 3. These two bail applications have been moved by the three applicants, who are real brothers. Bail application no. 960 of 2025 has been moved by Shokin and Muntiyaz, both real brothers, son of Sukka and bail application no. 962 of 2025 has been moved by Gulsannavar @ Gullu, real brother of applicants, who are praying in bail application no. 960 of 2025. 4. All these applicants, who are real brothers are praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 19.06.2024 bearing FIR No. 367 of 2024, Police Station – Pathari, District – Haridwar wherein present applicants along with one Hashin (the brother of the applicants) were implicated for the offences punishable under Section 323, 452, 504 IPC. In this FIR, investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 06.10.2024 wherein all the applicants have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 452, 307 & 34 IPC and Hashin was exonerated. In this charge- sheet, cognizance was taken and trial was commenced. There were in total 14 prosecution witnesses, out of which 8 prosecution witnesses were examined. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that due to injury sustained by the victim – Shahid Hasan, father-in-law of Shokin, he was admitted in the Hospital and thereafter, he was discharged on 23.07.2024 but unfortunately he died on 07.08.2024 and after his death, charge sheet was filed on 06.10.2024 but subsequently, after two months of his death on 24.10.2024 body was excavated and post-mortem was conducted in which no cause of death was mentioned and 2025:UHC:6451 viscera was preserved for analysis. He further submits that since earlier charge sheet was filed on 06.10.2024 in which there were 14 prosecution witnesses and trial was commenced and 8 witnesses were examined but subsequently, after the post-mortem on the body, which was excavated on 24.10.2024, supplementary charge sheet was filed on 05.01.2025 by adding one more penal provision i.e. section 302 of IPC. On this supplementary charge sheet, further cognizance was taken and thereafter, prosecution moved an application for recalling all the previous 8 prosecution witnesses, who were examined earlier. Out of these 8 prosecution witnesses, 7 prosecution witnesses were declared hostile by the trial court. PW1 and PW2 were declared hostile by the trial court on 15.04.2025, PW3 was declared hostile by the trial court on 02.05.2025, PW4 and PW5 were declared hostile by the trial court on 27.05.2025 and PW6 and PW7 were declared hostile by the trial court on 13.05.2025. 6. He further argued that admittedly, the trial is still going on and out of the 14 prosecution witnesses, only 7 prosecution witnesses have been re-examined and all the 7 prosecution witnesses were declared hostile by the trial court, therefore, at this juncture, there is no purpose to keep the applicants, who are real brothers, in custody and all the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and Shokin and Gulsannavar @ Gullu, are languishing in jail since 09.07.2024 and Muntiyaz is languishing in jail since 08.07.2024. 7. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State have not disputed that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 7 prosecution witnesses were re-examined and all of them were declared hostile by the trial court and further all the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and Shokin and Gulsannavar @ Gullu, are languishing in jail since 09.07.2024 and Muntiyaz is languishing in jail since 08.07.2024. He further submits that since the trial is still going on, therefore, their custody is not required and their bail application may be considered. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned 2025:UHC:6451 counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that trial is still going on, and out of the 14 prosecution witnesses, only 7 prosecution witnesses have been re-examined and all the 7 prosecution witnesses were declared hostile by the trial court and all the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents, therefore, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, both the bail applications are allowed. 10. Let the applicants ‘‘Shokin, Muntiyaz and Gulsannavar @ Gullu, son of Sukka” be released on bail on furnishing their personal bonds and two sureties, by each of them, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 11. It is made clear that after being released on bail, the applicants will attend trial on each and every date fixed before the trial court and will not take any unnecessary adjournment and if the applicants fail to comply with the aforesaid condition, the trial court is free to cancel their bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 22.07.2025. SKS