2025:UHC:6328 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. 1267 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Mr. Syed Kashif Jafri, Ms. Irum Zeba, Mrs. Seema Khan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Tasleem Khan’ S/o Muzammil Khan is praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 06.05.2025 bearing FIR No. 61 of 2025 P.S. Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant along with three others namely Shahbaaz Baig, Shahid Ali and Bachchan Saifi were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 3(5), 308(5), 309(4), 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is no specific allegation against the present applicant in the FIR and on plain reading of the contents of the FIR it reveals that there was some dispute in between the informant and the co-accused Shahbaaz Baig. In support of his submission he also placed before this court another FIR lodged by the wife of Shahbaaz Baig dated 27.05.2025 wherein she raised the allegations against the informant and other 12 to 15 persons, who are infact involved in Bitcoin money funding and cheated large number of persons under the scheme of Chit fund. 5. He also submits that the informant have criminal antecedents of 4 to 5 criminal cases and involved in the activity of Bitcoin money funding. He also submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the dispute in between Shahbaaz Baig and the informant and running small scale garment factory in his house at Bareilly and has no previous criminal history. 6. On the other side, Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the chargesheet has already been filed, however in 2025:UHC:6328 reference to the criminal history of the present applicant she submits that she has no instructions since the applicant himself gives a statement that the applicant has no previous criminal history. Apart from this, Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt also submits that since the chargesheet against the present applicant has already been filed, therefore, at this juncture there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the chargesheet against the present applicant has already been filed and furthermore as per the statement of the learned counsel for the applicant the applicant has no previous criminal history, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Tasleem Khan’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 10. It is made clear that grant of bail to the present applicant will not be treated as a precedent in respect of other accused and furthermore after being released on bail if the applicant is found to be indulged in any criminal activity then the prosecution is free to move an application for cancellation of bail. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:6328