2015:UHC:8689 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.1421 of 2025 Atul Kumar .....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocate (through video conferencing). Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The applicant-Atul Kumar is in judicial custody for the offence under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Case Crime No.676 of 2024, registered at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. 2. According to the prosecution, Meenakshi, the daughter of the informant, was shot on her chest by the applicant at about 7:30 p.m. on 17.12.2024. Swati is an eye-witness of the incident. Meenakshi was admitted to hospital. The FIR was registered on 17.12.2024. She died during her treatment on 27.12.2024. A country made pistol was recovered on 18.12.2024 and empty cartridge was recovered on 19.12.2024 at the instance of the applicant. 1 2015:UHC:8689 3. Heard Mr. Shivam Gulati, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 4. Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocate, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The father of the deceased, the informant, is not a witness. As per the prosecution, the witness Swati (PW2), aged about 19 years, was the eye-witness, but, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. 5. Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocate, further contended that the case of the prosecution is that one country made pistol was recovered on 18.12.2024 and empty cartridge was recovered on 19.12.2024 at the instance of the applicant. The said recoveries are false. No independent witness was present at the time of the said recoveries. Therefore, this fact also makes the prosecution’s case doubtful. Applicant is in judicial custody since 18.12.2024. He has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. 6. Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application. However, he has fairly conceded that the sole eye-witness Swati (PW2) has not supported the case of the prosecution. 2 2015:UHC:8689 7. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Atul Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:01.09.2025 Shiv/ 3