2025:UHC:2546 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.1405 of 2024 Mohammad Furkan ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Paritosh Dalakoti, learned counsel, for the applicant. Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant, who stands accused in FIR No. 0035/2024 registered at Police Station Clement Town, District Dehradun for offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/3 of the Arms Act. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 15th April 2024. 2. The matter comes before this Court after the rejection of his bail application by the Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar vide order dated 03.07.2024. 3. The factual matrix of the case, as per the prosecution version, originates from an FIR lodged on 15th April 2024 by Sub- Inspector Mahadev Uniyal. It is alleged that during investigation of a connected loot case (FIR No. 76/2024), two suspects riding a black Splendor motorcycle were intercepted. The suspects allegedly opened indiscriminate fire at the police, injuring SI Sunil Negi. The applicant was apprehended at the scene and a country-made pistol, 1 a live cartridge, and looted earrings were allegedly recovered from him. 4. The forensic analysis report dated 11.06.2024 confirms discharge residue in the barrel of the weapon. However, Dr. S.K. Sharma's FSL report notes, 'It cannot be possible to link the 0.32/7.65mm cartridge case marked as C-1 with the country-made pistol marked as A-1 due to insufficient characteristic marks'. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record, including the case diary, medical reports, FSL report, and witness statements under Section 161 CrPC. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a victim of mistaken identity and the recovery is doubtful due to absence of independent witnesses. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is aged 33 years, and supports a family including elderly parents and young children. 7. The State opposes bail citing the grave nature of the offence, alleged use of firearm on a police officer, and possible involvement in the connected loot case. Concerns are also raised about flight risk and tampering with evidence. 8. While the prosecution has established a prima facie case at this stage, the absence of independent recovery witnesses and the inconclusive ballistic match weaken the evidentiary basis. These concerns merit consideration at the bail stage. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, cautioned against mechanical arrests. In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, it was held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where trial is likely to take time. 10. Therefore, after carefully balancing all relevant considerations—including the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the strength of the prosecution's case, the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, his personal and family circumstances, lack of criminal antecedents, and the current stage of investigation—this Court is of the considered view that the applicant may be granted bail, subject to stringent conditions. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Mohammad Furkan, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The grant of bail shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or approach any prosecution witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court. (iii) The applicant shall appear on all dates fixed by the trial court, unless prevented by sufficient cause. (iv) In case the applicant is found indulging in any criminal activity or violating any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 28.03.2025 NR/