2025:UHC:4808 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. 963 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Rohit Gupta’ S/o Late Krishan Kumar Gupta is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 06.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 10 of 2025 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was lodged by one complainant namely Shivam Gupta against three persons namely Raju, Jhonny and Sandeep Gupta and one other unknown person in which the chargesheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 125(A), 125(B), 3(5) and 105 of BNS, 2023. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR and further submits that as per the prosecution the complainant was the eye witness, but he has not disclosed the name of the applicant in the FIR. He submits that during investigation the complainant, who was the eye witness as per the prosecution in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. discloses the name of the applicant. This appears to be an after thought. 5. Apart from this, he submits that even on perusal of the allegations in the FIR there was no such motive, however, he submits that the chargehsset has already been filed for the offences punishable under Section 125(A), 125(B), 3(5) r/w Section 105 of BNS, 2023 and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. He further submits that the other co- accused namely Sandeep Gupta have already been enlarged on bail by this court on 20.05.2025. 6. On the other side, the State counsel have not disputed this fact that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 2025:UHC:4808 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and he is languishing in jail since 11.01.2025 and the other co-accused has already been granted bail, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Rohit Gupta’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 11.06.2025 PR 2025:UHC:4808