2025:UHC:5935 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. 1067 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Aayush Rajha S/o Shri Satendra Kumar Verma is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 17.03.2025, bearing FIR No. 0174 of 2025, Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar, which was lodged against 13 persons along with one unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the four co-accused persons, namely, Harshit Rathi, Harsh Mehta, Babit and Abhishek Saini, have been enlarged on bail and the role assigned to the two co-accused, who have been granted bail, namely, Harshit Rathi and Abhishek Saini, is similar to the role assigned to the present applicant and claims parity. 6. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA have not disputed this fact that the four co-accused have already been granted bail and as per the prosecution, the main accused is Jatin, and, furthermore, the two persons, who have been granted bail, was assigned the same role, which has been assigned to the present applicant. 7. Apart from this, he has also apprised to 2025:UHC:5935 this Court that the applicant having criminal history of one case relating to the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, in which he is already bailed out and the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of parity. 8. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the two co-accused persons, who have been assigned the similar role, have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant, namely, “Aayush Rajha,” 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.) 09.07.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:5935