2026:UHC:797 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1661/2025 With BA1/1668/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ankit Bisht and Mr. Abhishek Anthwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicants-Gulshan Rawat and Rajnees Rawat, who are in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 156 of 2025, registered under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, have sought their enlargement on bail. 4. Since both the bail applications arise out of the same F.I.R., relate to the same incident, they are being decided together by this common order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged on 14.06.2025 at 14:22 hours alleging that on 13.06.2025 at about 7:30 P.M., the present applicants, who are real brothers, assaulted the informant/injured with an iron rod and a sharp-edged weapon (drati/sickle), with an intention to kill him. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicant Rajnees 2026:UHC:797 Rawat was driving an auto belonging to the informant and due to a dispute regarding non-payment of salary for several months, the informant falsely implicated both the applicants; that, although the F.I.R. alleges use of a drati (sickle) and iron rod, the injury report does not indicate any injury attributable to a sharp-edged weapon. It is also argued that the Doctor (PW-4) opined that the injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature and that the injured left the hospital after receiving first aid. It is also submitted that there is a material contradiction inasmuch as the informant stated that he had not consumed liquor, whereas the medical report mentions smell of alcohol, which casts doubt on the prosecution version. 8. It is further submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated; that, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R., as the alleged incident took place on 13.06.2025 whereas the F.I.R. was registered on 14.06.2025; that, the applicants are in judicial custody since 14.06.2025; that, their bail applications were rejected by the court below vide orders dated 19.08.2025 and 25.08.2025; they have no previous criminal history; and they are permanent residents of District Pauri Garhwal, thus there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with evidence. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail applications on the ground that the medical evidence supports the prosecution case. 2026:UHC:797 However, he fairly admits that the applicants are in custody since 14.06.2025 and that their bail applications were rejected by the court below. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, and taking into account the nature of allegations, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail. 11. Accordingly, both the bail applications are allowed. 12. Let the applicants, Gulshan Rawat and Rajnees Rawat, be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid case crime number, subject to their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.02.2026 Mamta