2026:UHC:2902 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.1629 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Abhishek Anthwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No.290 of 2024, under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Section 25/3 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the applicant along with the co-accused was wanted in connection with F.I.R. No. 236 of 2024. It is alleged that on receipt of information, the police intercepted the applicant and co-accused while they were riding on a black Splendour motorcycle from Roorkee towards Bahadrabad. Upon being signalled to stop, they allegedly attempted to flee and are stated to have fired upon the police party. In response, the police also fired in self-defence, resulting in gunshot injuries to the applicant and co-accused. It is further alleged that a shot fired by the applicant struck a government vehicle. However, learned counsel submits that the medical report of the co-accused records blackening around the wound, which, as per settled medical jurisprudence, occurs only when the shot is fired from a close range of approximately 1–2 feet. This, it is contended, contradicts the prosecution version in the F.I.R., which suggests that the parties were at a considerable distance at the time of the alleged exchange of fire. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, has no criminal antecedents, and is in judicial custody since 25.06.2024. It is also argued that the F.I.R. is a delayed one, having been lodged after a lapse of about 11 hours from the alleged incident. Moreover, it is a case 2026:UHC:2902 of no injury to the police personnel, and all the witnesses cited are police witnesses. It is also pointed out that the applicant and co-accused have already been granted bail in connection with the main case, i.e., F.I.R. No. 236 of 2024. 4. On the previous occasion, the learned State Counsel was directed to obtain instructions as to whether any forensic examination of the vehicle, which allegedly sustained gunshot impact, had been conducted. Today, upon instructions, it is stated that no such forensic examination has been carried out. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the contradictions pointed out in the prosecution case, particularly with regard to the medical evidence vis-à-vis the version in the F.I.R., the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., absence of injury to any police personnel, the fact that all witnesses are official witnesses, the absence of forensic corroboration, as well as the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant and his clean antecedents, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. The bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant-Yogesh be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 21.04.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a 20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109C B987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.21 18:10:00 +05'30'