2025:UHC:5946 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. 1204 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Geetanjali, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Bhanu Jaiswal S/o Lekhraj, is seeking bail in relation to first information report dated 27.05.2025 bearing FIR No. 0163 of 2025, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital, which, in fact, was lodged against unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 331(4) of the BNS, 2023. The present applicant has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 305(a), 331(4) and 317(2) of BNS, 2023 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and, furthermore, the applicant is not named in the FIR and the alleged recovery, as shown by the prosecution is false. 5. She also submits that the reference of articles, which has been given in the FIR, were not recovered from the present applicant and the applicant has no nexus with the other co-accused persons. Apart from this, she further submits that the present applicant has no previous criminal history, which is reflected from the order of the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, by which the bail application was rejected. 6. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, 2025:UHC:5946 learned AGA for the State vehemently oppose the bail application by submitting that there is recovery from the present applicant as well as from the other co- accused and also submits that the other co- accused have long criminal history of various cases of the similar nature. He submits that against co-accused, namely, Akeel, there are 11 cases in Bareilly (U.P) and most of the cases related to theft and in respect of other co-accused, namely, Ashraf, there are 24 cases in Udham Singh Nagar and 10 cases in Peelibheet of the same nature. 7. He further submits that the investigation is still going on and there is possibility that the applicant is also involved in other cases since the other co- accused have long criminal history, therefore, in such an eventuality, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the wife of the present applicant is pregnant and there is no one to look after his wife, therefore taking into consideration her condition, the applicant be enlarged on bail. 9. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the investigation with regard to the present applicant is still going on and there is possibility that the applicant is also involved in other cases since the other co- accused have long criminal history, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 11. So far as the pregnancy of the wife of the present applicant is concerned, the 2025:UHC:5946 liberty is granted to the present applicant to move a Short Term Bail application also, if so advised. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.07.2025 R.Bisht