SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S s 2026:UHC:2466 BA2 No. 37 of 2026 Saif Ali ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Anoop Jaiswal, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Second Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Saif Ali, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Arif Ali, R/o Bypass Colony, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 26 of 2025, registered at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 317(2) and 309(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 4. Heard Mr. Anoop Jaiswal, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has been perused. 5. The First Bail Application of the Applicant was rejected vide order dated 16.01.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 799 of 2025, titled as “Saif Ali vs. State of Uttarakhand”. 6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that, during the course of trial, the material witnesses, namely the informant Rahuf Ali (PW1) and his wife (PW2), who are eye-witnesses to the incident, have not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that, in their cross-examination, they have categorically stated that they do not recognize the person who allegedly committed theft of cash and jewellery from the house. It is, therefore, contended that new circumstances have emerged after rejection of the first bail application, entitling the Applicant to be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the Applicant has a criminal history. 8. After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. New grounds have emerged during the course of trial, particularly in view of the testimony of the material witnesses, including the informant (PW1), who have not supported the prosecution case and have failed to identify the accused in Court. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 07.04.2026 Shiksha