2026:UHC:2628 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.2488 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant–Sunil, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 485 of 2025, registered under Sections 143(1)(d), 143(3), 146, 318(4), 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S., at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has moved the present application seeking his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of the victim alleging that the applicant, on the pretext of providing employment abroad, took a sum of ₹70,000/- in cash and facilitated the travel of the informant’s son along with another person to Thailand. It is alleged that instead of providing employment in Thailand, the victims were taken to Myanmar, where they were allegedly confined and compelled to work as bonded labour and forced to engage in cyber fraud activities. It is further alleged that the victims somehow managed to escape, reached the 2026:UHC:2628 Thailand border, and with the intervention of local authorities and the Indian Embassy, were repatriated to India on 06.11.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that, there is an unexplained delay of about seven days in lodging the F.I.R., inasmuch as the victim returned to India on 06.11.2025, whereas the F.I.R. came to be lodged on 13.11.2025. It is further submitted that except for bald and oral allegations, no cogent or documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the claim that the applicant received money or facilitated the alleged illegal activities, therefore, the prosecution story is improbable and has been set up with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores. 7. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 13.11.2025, has no previous criminal history, and the bail application moved earlier has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 03.12.2025. It is further contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail; however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant is in custody since 13.11.2025 and that his earlier bail application was rejected by the court below on 03.12.2025. 2026:UHC:2628 9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (Alok Mahra, J.) 10.04.2026 Mamta