2025:UHC:6746 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. 1186 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Arun Kumar Balmiki’ S/o Sudesh Kumar Balmiki is praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 03.01.2025 bearing FIR No. 0009 of 2025 P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was lodged against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the recovery of Rs. 12,000/-, which is shown to be recovered from the applicant, is false and planted one. He further submits that there is a two days’ delay in lodging the FIR and the CCTV footages does not clearly establish the identity of the applicant and no ground of arrest was provided. 5. The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report dated 03.01.2025 bearing Case Crime No. 0009 of 2025 was lodged at P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023 and as per the allegation two persons by covering their face with mask and helmet came in the shop and they fire from a pistol in the counter of the shop and they taken away an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and two mobiles and the entire incident was covered in the CCTV footages. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; the CCTV footages does not clearly establish the identity of the applicant and no ground of arrest has been given. He also submits that the false implication of the 2025:UHC:6746 present applicant is also evident from the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR. 7. On the other side, learned A.G.A. Mr. Sandeep Sharma on written instructions submits that the applicant is the habitual offender and as many as six cases have been registered against him relating to different provisions of the Indian Penal Code in district Moradabad and one case bearing FIR No. 160 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 396, 397, 412 and 34 of IPC, in response to this particular case learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been honourably acquitted, however in remaining six cases he is bailed out and facing trial. 8. Learned A.G.A. further submits that infact this applicant is indulged in criminal activity since 2003 and looted articles were also recovered from the applicant, therefore, releasing the present applicant on bail is not at all in the interest of the society. He also submits that he indulged in criminal activity since long back in the State of U.P. now he commit the offence in the State of Uttarakhand. 9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the materials placed before this court by Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. the written instructions and taking into consideration long criminal history of the applicant that too in the State of U.P. and Delhi, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly, instant bail application is rejected. . (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 31.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:6746