I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

22^ND SEPTEMBER, 2025

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 1715 of 2025

Balister ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant

Government Advocate with

Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief

Holder.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Applicant-Balister is in judicial custody under

Section 109(1) and Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Case Crime No.254 of 2025,

registered at Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar.

2. According to the First Information Report dated 03.08.2025, the applicant and two co-accused came to the main gate of the informant’s house at about 08.00 a.m. on 02.08.2025. Applicant had a gun and others had country made pistol. They opened fired

which hit Sushil and Vaibhav alias Vansh.

3. Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for

the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

4. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate contended that at the time of the incident, CCTV cameras were installed. Footage of CCTV cameras do not show that the applicant had fired. On the date of the incident, the family members of the informant opened fire. The father of the co-accused Sanoj Kumar has also lodged the First Information Report (FIR No.255 of 2025). The said FIR has been registered under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He has no criminal antecedents, and, he is in custody since

06.08.2025.

5. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate has opposed the bail application orally. However, he submitted on instructions that the footage of CCTV camera does not show that the applicant had fired.

6. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused persons in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8. The Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant – Balister 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.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date: 22.09.2025 JKJ/Pant