2026:UHC:3467 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 BA1 No.1020 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Arvind Vashishta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the complainant. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./ Case Crime No.98 of 2025, under Section 109 and 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 25 & 3 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. 3. The First Information Report was lodged by S.I. Naresh Rathore on 12.02.2025 against the applicant and two other co-accused persons. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that while the police party was carrying out routine checking, the informant gave an information to the police that the persons involved in the murder of a doctor in Case Crime No. 90 of 2025 were coming from Kaliyar towards Core Engineering College and could be apprehended. Acting upon the said information, the police party attempted to stop the accused persons, however, they tried to flee from the spot. During the chase, the motorcycle on which they were travelling slipped and thereafter, in an attempt to evade arrest and assault the police personnel, the accused persons allegedly opened fire 2026:UHC:3467 upon the police party. In retaliation, the police personnel also fired nine rounds. It is further alleged that two of the accused sustained injuries and were apprehended at the spot. Recovery memo was prepared on the spot and the motorcycle recovered from the possession of the accused persons was found to be registered in the name of deceased Dr. Gopal Gupta. It is further alleged that the applicant was found wearing the watch and shoes belonging to the deceased. Co-accused Haseen @ Sameer was allegedly driving the motorcycle. Thereafter, the injured accused persons were taken to the hospital for treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has remained in judicial custody since 12.02.2025. It is submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged incident and has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel further submits that no independent public witness has been associated with the alleged recovery and the entire prosecution story rests upon the version of the police personnel. It is also argued that the applicant did not sustain any firearm injury despite the alleged exchange of fire and no specific role has been assigned to him regarding firing upon the police party. It is further submitted that the alleged recoveries are planted and there is no legally admissible evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is a young person of 34 years having roots in society and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, therefore, he 2026:UHC:3467 deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submit that the applicant is specifically named in the F.I.R. and was apprehended on the spot after a police encounter. It is further submitted that the motorcycle recovered from the possession of the accused persons belonged to the deceased doctor involved in Case Crime No. 90 of 2025 and the applicant was found wearing articles belonging to the deceased, which prima facie establishes his involvement in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel further submit that the accused persons opened fire upon the police party with an intention to kill the police personnel while attempting to escape from lawful custody. The offence alleged against the applicant is grave and serious in nature involving use of illegal firearms and attack upon police personnel in discharge of official duties. It is also submitted that investigation has collected sufficient material against the applicant and in case he is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood that he may influence witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. The applicant was allegedly apprehended at the spot after an exchange of fire with the police party and recoveries connecting him with the offence involving the murder of Dr. Gopal Gupta have also 2026:UHC:3467 been shown from his possession. The prosecution case prima facie indicates active participation of the applicant along with co-accused persons in the alleged incident. Considering the gravity and nature of accusation, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the use of firearms against police personnel and the material collected during investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 07.05.2026 Arpan