HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 53 of 2025 Vikesh Alias Military ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:-

Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the injured.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 0006 of

2024, under Sections 307, 504 IPC and Section 3/25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Jhabreda, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused.

3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.659 of 2024, was rejected on

14.05.2024.

4. According to the FIR, on 04.01.2024, at 7:15, in the evening, the applicant opened fire at the injured Nitin alias Monu, which hit the injured, but somehow it was not fatal to his life. The applicant also fired at Sher Singh. In fact, the FIR also records that on the date of incident, the injured was returning to his home along with Sher Singh, when he was waylaid by the applicant and co-accused.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there are changed circumstances now; the person, who was allegedly accompanying the injured has been examined as PW2, Sher Singh. He has not supported the prosecution case. According to injured Nitin, after the incident, other persons reached at the spot, but those other persons, Kapil and Suraj, who have been examined as PW3 and PW4, respectively, state in the court that they were accompanying the injured, when the injured was attacked. It is argued that it is not the case of the informant. It is argued that according to the injured, he met his father two days after the incident, whereas, the FIR was lodged after 26 hours of the incident.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the injured, PW1, Nitin, has supported the prosecution case.

7. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that still the family members of the applicant are threatening the informant and his family members, of which an NCR has also been lodged.

8. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

9. The injured as well as two of the alleged eye witnesses has already been examined. Discrepancy has been revealed in the statements of the injured as well as PW3, Kapil and PW4, Suraj, with regard to the genesis of the incident, particularly, as to whether PW3, Kapil and PW4, Suraj, reached at the spot after the incident took place or as to whether they were accompanying the injured, PW1, Nitin, when they were waylaid by the applicant and the co- accused. Admittedly, PW2, Sher Singh, the injured witness, who, according to the FIR, was accompanying the injured PW1, Nitin, has not supported the prosecution case at trial.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J)

14.05.2025 Ravi Bisht