SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3481 BA1 No. 519 of 2026 Paras Chodhary ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait han i, J. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Paliwal, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Paras Choudhary, S/o Jagpal Singh, R/o House No. 540, Krishnapuri, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 0040 of 2026, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, for offences punishable under Sections 25 and 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 111(3) of the B.N.S., 2023. 4. Heard Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Paliwal, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to the overzealous approach of the Special Task Force (STF) and the local police, who have concocted a narrative which is physically and technically improbable. It is submitted that the Applicant was illegally picked up by the police on the night of 25.02.2026 from Siddharth Rajpur Regal Society, Dehradun, and that the STF deliberately shut down all recording devices and body cameras during the said pick-up, in violation of the mandatory guidelines relating to arrest and search. It is further submitted that the Applicant was kept in unauthorized custody for nearly 24 hours. It is also submitted that despite the alleged arrest having taken place at a busy public junction on Sahastradhara Road, the police failed to associate even a single independent public witness, thereby raising serious doubt regarding the alleged recovery. Furthermore, the prosecution’s claim that the Applicant is a member of the Sunil Rathi Gang is stated to be based upon mere conjecture. Learned counsel submits that the Applicant has never met Sunil Rathi in jail, nor does any jail visitor log (mulaqat record) exist to substantiate such allegation. 6. Lastly, it is submitted that the co-accused, namely Bhanu Chaudhary, who was allegedly arrested from the same vehicle and from whom a similar recovery was allegedly made, has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court, Dehradun vide order dated 13.03.2026. On the ground of parity, the Applicant is also entitled to the same relief, as the allegations against both accused persons are identical in nature. The Applicant is in judicial custody since 26.02.2026. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the bail application contending that at the time of arrest, the present Applicant-Paras Choudhary was found in possession of an illegal .32 bore pistol along with three live cartridges, for which he failed to produce any valid licence. It is further submitted that a perusal of the Applicant’s mobile phone revealed contact with Sunil Rathi through Apple FaceTime, indicating involvement in organized criminal activities. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the co- accused has already been granted bail and the present Applicant seeks parity. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the Applicant-Paras Choudhary 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. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 07.05.2026 Shiksha