] SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:575 BA1 No.799 of 2025 With BA2 No.134 of 2025 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Kaushal Pandey, learned counsel for the Applicant in BA1 No.799 of 2025. 2. Mr. D.P. Mittal, learned counsel through V.C. and Mr. Mohd. Imran, learned counsel for the Applicant in BA2 No.134 of 2025. 3. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned AGA, assisted by Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder and Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned counsel for the State. 5. The present bail applications arise out of FIR No.29 of 2025, registered at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 317(2) and 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 6. As per the prosecution version disclosed in the FIR, during the intervening night hours at about 2:00–3:00 AM, when the complainant was sleeping in his house along with his family members, two masked persons unlawfully trespassed into the house. It is alleged that the miscreants, at gunpoint, took the complainant’s wife under threat and thereafter committed robbery of cash and jewellery. The two masked persons have been shown to be the present Applicants in the connected bail applications. 7. So far as Applicant Irshad is concerned, the present application is his second bail application (Bail Application No. 134 of 2025). His earlier bail application was rejected by this Court. Learned counsel for the Applicant has not been able to point out any new fact, circumstance, or subsequent development which may warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. In the absence of any fresh ground, the second bail application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 8. With respect to Applicant Saif Ali (Bail Application No.799 of 2025), this is his first regular bail application, though he was earlier granted anticipatory bail. However, from a perusal of the recovery memo, it is prima facie reflected that the firearm allegedly used in the commission of the offence, along with cartridges, cash and other stolen articles, have been recovered during investigation. The factum and nature of recovery are inferable from the recovery memo placed on record. 9. The allegations disclose a grave and heinous offence involving house-trespass by night, use of a firearm, intimidation of a woman inside her dwelling house, and commission of robbery. The manner of occurrence, the recovery of incriminating articles, and the role attributed to the Applicant lend prima facie assurance to the prosecution case at this stage. 10. This Court further takes note of the fact that Applicant Saif Ali is stated to have previous criminal history. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment prescribed, the material collected during investigation including the recoveries, and the antecedents of the Applicant, this Court is of the considered view that a case for grant of bail is not made out. There are sufficient grounds for believing that the Applicant is involved in the commission of the offence and his release at this stage may not be conducive to the fair administration of criminal justice. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to exercise discretion in favour of either of the Applicants. 12. The Second Bail Application No.134 of 2025 moved by Applicant Irshad is rejected. 13. The Bail Application No.799 of 2025 moved by Applicant Saif Ali is also rejected. 14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present bail applications and shall not prejudice the merits of the case at any subsequent stage. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Vacation Judge 16.01.2026 Arti