2026:UHC:3995 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.1423 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Ms. Zeba Naaz and Ms. Sadaf, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General 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.48 of 2025, under Sections 123, 303(2), 317(2) of B.N.S., 2023, registered at Police Station G.R.P. Haridwar, District Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 20.06.2025, thereby suffering incarceration for a considerable period. It is next contended that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 28.05.2025; however, the F.I .R. came to be lodged belatedly on 18.06.2025, after an unexplained delay of about 20 days. It is argued that such inordinate delay in setting the criminal law into motion, in the absence of any plausible or satisfactory explanation, casts serious doubt on the veracity and genuineness of the prosecution version and indicates afterthought and embellishment. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has already compounded the offence with the co-accused, from whom the alleged mobile phone and SIM card, purportedly belonging to the applicant, are stated to have been recovered. It is argued that once the principal dispute regarding the recovered articles stands settled/ compounded with the co-accused, the continued prosecution of the applicant becomes unsustainable and discriminatory in nature. It is also contended that the alleged recovery itself is doubtful, inasmuch as, no independent public witness has been associated with the recovery proceedings. On these premises, it is submitted that the 2026:UHC:3995 prosecution case suffers from inherent improbabilities and material infirmities, and that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Considering the submissions advanced, it appears that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 20.06.2025, thereby undergoing substantial incarceration. The F.I .R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 20 days from the alleged incident dated 28.05.2025, which prima facie raises doubt regarding the spontaneity and credibility of the prosecution version. The alleged recovery of mobile phone and SIM card is also rendered doubtful in absence of independent public witnesses, affecting its evidentiary value at this stage. Further, the complainant having compounded the offence with the co-accused from whom the alleged articles were recovered creates a comparable situation in favour of the applicant. In these circumstances, continued detention is not warranted, and the applicant does not appear to be a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence. Considering that conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail at this stage. The bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicant-Shaukat Ali be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 21.05.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536544 5e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C 5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.21 16:51:12 +05'30'