No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 2070 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vishal Singh Mahara and Mr. Rajesh S. Nagarkoti, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Dheeraj Singh Nagarkoti, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 238, 324(4), 3(5) and 352 of BNS, registered at P.S.- Bhimtal, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In the present case, an FIR was lodged on 04.06.2025 by one Surendra Singh Bisht, who is brother of the owner of the restaurant. During investigation, the injured succumbed to his injuries and died, therefore, chargesheet was filed under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 238, 324(4), 3(5) and 352 of BNS. Applicant was not named in the FIR, but, during investigation, the applicant has been made an accused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; that only on the basis of the statement given by one Govind Singh recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, applicant has been implicated. In his statement, Govind Singh has stated that in the night when he alongwith the deceased was walking in the restaurant, scuffle took place and applicant alongwith the other co- accused repeatedly kicked the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that that there is no electronic evidence, which may corroborate the story, as narrated in the FIR. It is also submitted that applicant is a practicing lawyer and on 19.05.2025, he went to attend the case in the court of Principal Judge, Almora and he was coming towards Haldwani. The incident is of 19.05.2025, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 04.06.2025 i.e. after more than 15 days of delay, but, no explanation has been given for such a delay in the FIR. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that chargesheet has been submitted hence there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 25.02.2026 Ujjwal