2025:UHC:4940 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. 982 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Sakum S/o Shri Sunderlal is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 22.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 0063 of 2025, Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar, which was lodged against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3) and 352of B.N.S., 2023, in which the applicant has been charge- sheeted with others for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2) & 351 of BNS, 2023 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the FIR itself since the same was lodged against unknown persons and even in the contents of the FIR, the applicant is not named and four persons, namely, Abhinav, Ashish, Hritik and Aditya, were named in the FIR. He also submits that the complainant, himself, as per prosecution, was witness and the persons, who were involved in the crime, were named in the FIR, but the applicant was not named, however, during investigation the injured Uday Sharma disclosed the name of the present applicant. During investigation, the name of another person, namely, Vansh S/o Jagdeep came into light and the 2025:UHC:4940 charge-sheet was filed against four persons, and, the applicant has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 351 of BNS, 2023, wherein the remaining three persons were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S, 2023. 5. He further submits that, in fact, there was an enmity in between the injured and the other co-accused Vansh and subsequently before submission of the charge-sheet, the family members of the injured and the co-accused Vansh settled their disputes, the copy of which is also placed on record. He also submits that after completion of the investigation, now the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and other co-accused and all of them are students and since the investigation has already been completed, at this stage, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and the applicant deserves for bail. 6. Learned State counsel seriously opposed the bail application by submitting that after through investigation and after collecting all credible evidences, the charge- sheet has been filed and so far as the settlement in between the family members of the injured and the family members of the Vansh is concerned, this is not the part of the investigation, therefore, such a settlement has no relevance, however, learned State counsel has not disputed this fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and the applicant having no previous criminal history. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the 2025:UHC:4940 present bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant, namely, Sakum, 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. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 13.06.2025 R.Bisht