2025:UHC:5268 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/655/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. M. S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Present applicants are praying for anticipatory bail in relation to FIR dated 15.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 0119 of 2025, Police Station – Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar wherein present applicants have been implicated along with Mohtasin and Ameer Aal @ Raja for the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118 (1), 324 (4), 352 of BNS, 2023. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that both the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated and present FIR is nothing but in a counterblast to the first information report lodged by Tufail, son of Akbhar Ali on 15.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 0043 of 2025 wherein four persons were implicated in reference to the incident in which daughter of Tufail was murdered. He further submits that applicant no. 1 the real brother of the deceased – Sonia, daughter of Tufail and applicant no. 2 is his friend. He further submits that present applicants have been falsely implicated only because of the FIR lodged by father of the applicant no. 1. He further submits that both the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation and there is an apprehension of arrest, therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. On the other side, learned State Counsel submits that as per medical report and statement of the doctor, injuries caused to the injured are grievous in nature and danger to life and there are CCTV footage and as such, applicants do not deserve for anticipatory bail. 7. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, also argued that in fact, investigation in the FIR lodged by Tufail is going on and in order to mount pressure upon investigating agency, this incident was caused by the applicants and injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature and 2025:UHC:5268 there are CCTV footage. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the allegations, as alleged in the FIR and written instructions received by the learned State Counsel, this Court is view of that applicants do not deserve for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. 9. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court, in the preceding paragraph shall not affect the ongoing investigation. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 23.06.2025. SKS