2025:UHC:6741 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2025 Gaurav Bisht @ Parul ......Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. 1. The present matter pertains to the second bail application filed by the Applicant, Gaurav Bisht alias Parul (male), aged about 29 years, son of Late Satendra Singh, resident of House No.13, Block-1, Nadi Rispana Road, Karanpur, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 186 of 2024, registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, for offences punishable under Sections 125, 326(g), 62, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The Applicant's first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025, upon consideration of the gravity of the offence and the prima facie material available on record, including CCTV footage, witness statements, and the recovery of a partially burned wick from the spot, all of which pointed towards a deliberate attempt at arson. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In this second bail application, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that material witnesses, namely the complainant (PW1) and her 1 Second Bail Application No. 201 of 2025----Gaurav Bisht alias Parul vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:6741 daughter (PW2), have now been examined before the trial court, and their testimonies fail to implicate the Applicant. 5. It is contended that both witnesses have neither supported the prosecution’s case in its entirety nor identified the Applicant as one of the perpetrators. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions between their depositions before the court and their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., thereby eroding the substratum of the prosecution’s case. 6. Learned counsel also points out that no Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer, which, in a case of this nature where the perpetrators were allegedly unknown, creates serious doubts about the correctness of the investigation. 7. It is urged that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution is disputed, and no cogent forensic confirmation of the Applicant’s identity has been placed on record. 8. Another significant contention advanced on behalf of the Applicant is that his arrest was not in compliance with the mandate of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing at the time of arrest, which renders his continued incarceration unconstitutional. 9. It is further submitted that there exists a prior enmity between the Applicant and the complainant’s family on account of the alleged elopement of the complainant’s son with the Applicant’s wife, which has been admitted by the complainant in her Section 161 statement. It is thus argued that the Applicant’s implication is motivated by malice and is a result of a personal grudge. 2 Second Bail Application No. 201 of 2025----Gaurav Bisht alias Parul vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:6741 10. Learned counsel for the Applicant stresses that the Applicant has no prior criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Dehradun, and undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner. 11. It is further submitted that with the key witnesses now examined and the material contradictions evident, the possibility of the Applicant interfering with the trial is minimal. 12. Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail application, reiterating the serious nature of the offence. It is argued that the act of throwing a petrol bomb into a residential house, even if it did not explode, is a grave act endangering human life and public safety. 13. It is submitted that the CCTV footage and recovery of the partially burned wick continue to substantiate the prosecution’s case, and granting bail at this stage may pose a threat to the complainant and witnesses. 14. This Court finds that the circumstances prevailing at the time of the first bail application have materially changed. The examination of PW1 and PW2, who are the star witnesses of the prosecution, assumes great significance. 15. A careful reading of their depositions indicates that they have not fully supported the prosecution’s case and have not attributed any specific role to the Applicant. The absence of a Test Identification Parade further weakens the evidentiary value of their statements. 16. At this stage, the Court cannot overlook the admitted animosity between the parties, as reflected in the complainant’s statement, which lends some credence to the Applicant’s plea of false implication. 3 Second Bail Application No. 201 of 2025----Gaurav Bisht alias Parul vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:6741 Further, the procedural lapses pointed out in relation to the arrest, though not sufficient to invalidate the proceedings, also weigh in favour of the Applicant when considered cumulatively with the other infirmities. 17. While the allegations undoubtedly pertain to a serious offence, the settled principle of law is that gravity alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail, particularly when material witnesses have been examined. 18. The evidentiary foundation of the prosecution has been significantly shaken. The Applicant has remained in custody since 04.09.2024, and further incarceration at this stage would not serve any useful purpose, especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. ORDER In view of the changed circumstances, the examination of key witnesses, the procedural irregularities, and the absence of prior criminal history, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant, Gaurav Bisht alias Parul, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Ashish Naithani, J. Dated: 23.07.2025 NR/ 4 Second Bail Application No. 201 of 2025----Gaurav Bisht alias Parul vs State of Uttarakhand Ashish Naithani J.