SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3700 BA1 No. 794 of 2026 Rajendra Aswal ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait han i, J. Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Rajendra Aswal, S/o Late Shyam Singh, R/o Pokhari, P.S. Pokhari, District Chamoli. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 03 of 2026, registered at Police Station Pokhari, District Chamoli, for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 117, 351 and 352 of the B.N.S., 2023; under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the allegation of firing a revolver, which forms the basis of the most serious charges against the Applicant, is not supported by any injury. It is further submitted that the Applicant is aged about 73 years and is suffering from a serious and life-threatening cardiac ailment. It is also contended that the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been invoked without any prima facie basis. For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the said Act to be attracted, the alleged insult or intimidation must have occurred in a public place and on account of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is thus argued that the prosecution case, particularly regarding the allegation of firing, rests on bald assertions unsupported by medical evidence. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations levelled against the Applicant are serious and grave in nature, and therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that, considering the advanced age of the Applicant and the serious medical condition he is suffering from, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Applicant has been able to make out a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant—Rajendra Aswal be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 10. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 11. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 14.05.2026 Shiksha