2026:UHC:965 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. 2153 of 2025 Gajendra ............Applicant. Vs. State of Uttarakhand ............Respondent. Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The applicant Gajendra S/o Ghastia is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 25.09.2024 bearing FIR No. 802 of 2024 P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar. 5. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further argued that the incident as happened is nothing but the fight between the two group of persons belonging to the same village, in respect of which the two first information reports have been registered, one is the present FIR No. 802 of 2024 and another one is from the side of the applicant bearing FIR No. 951 of 2024; however, on completion of the investigation in FIR No. 951 of 2024 the final report has been filed but subsequently the matter has been relegated for further investigation, which is still going on. He further argued that in the present case site plan is completely defective one since there is no description of place and also pointed out that one of the co-accused Joginder, who was also seriously injured in this incident and the injury was in the most vital part of the body i.e. brain was also chargesheeted and subsequently bailed out. 6. He further argued that the other three co- accused persons, who have been assigned the same role namely Sushil S/o Satpal, Aditya S/o Gajendra and Saurabh S/o Narendra have already been enlarged on bail and as such claims parity. 7. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant have a previous criminal history of one case of Section 323 of IPC in which he has already been acquitted. He also submits that since in this particular case the charge-sheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of further interrogation and the applicant is 2026:UHC:965 in custody since 26.09.2025. 8. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. have not disputed that the role as assigned to the present applicant is identical to the other co-accused named as above, who have already been granted bail and the only difference is that the lathi and danda, which was used in the crime was recovered from the house of the present applicant. He also not disputed that infact the incident was nothing but the fight in between the two group of people of village. 9. Mr. Lalit Sharma, who appears for the complainant, though submits that the Investigating Officer after collecting all credible materials have filed charge-sheet against the applicant and he does not deserve for bail. 10. He also pointed out that the other two co- accused namely Vipin and Narendra and one Vicky are not entitled to get the benefit of parity though he has not disputed claim parity of present applicant. 11. Taking into consideration that the other three co-accused, who have been assigned the same role as of the applicant have already been enlarged on bail and the learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have not disputed that the applicant deserves parity of the aforesaid three co- accused, in such view of the matter the applicant deserves for bail. 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant ‘Gajendra’ be released on bail on furnishing of his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 14. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.02.2026 PR 2026:UHC:965