UKHC010113142026 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/98/2026 Rajendra Singh Negi Alias Raju --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Mr. Rajni Supyal Latwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant second bal application is moved on behalf of the applicant Rajendra Singh Negi @ Raju for seeking regular bail in reference to FIR dated 01.03.2026 bearing FIR No. 03 of 2026 P.S. Dhaulchina District Almora wherein the present applicant is implicated and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 352 of BNS 2023 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act. 4. The first bail application was rejected by the Coordinate Bench on 08.05.2026 on the ground that applicant has previous criminal history and the offence is heinous. Now, the second bail application is moved on the ground that so far as criminal history is concerned there are only two criminal cases against him; one relates to the matrimonial dispute wherein the applicant is acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by judgment and order dated 11.01.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 533 of 2012 and another one relates to Foreigners Act and in this regard he submits that in this case he has UKHC010113142026 been given benefit of probation of first offenders Act, therefore, as on date there is no criminal antecedent. Apart from this, he submits that in the present case there are three injured persons and all the injuries are simple in nature caused by pallets. Apart from this, he submits that charge sheet has already been filed, and, as such, there is no need of further custodial interrogation of the present applicant and applicant is languishing in jail since 01.03.2026. 5. On the other side, Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.GA. have not disputed that the injuries of all the injured are simple in nature and about criminal antecedent he has not disputed the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in this particular case charge sheet has already been filed. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the charge sheet has already been filed and other two criminal cases against the applicant relate to matrimonial one and Foreigners Act which have already been closed, therefore, as on date there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Rajendra Singh Negi Alias Raju be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21-08-2026 Parul