Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1 No.2484 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Arvind Vashishta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Disha Vashistha, Advocate, holding brief of Dr.

Neha Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the complainant.

2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.239 of 2025, under Section 103, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352 & 117(2) of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

3. The applicant stands implicated in the aforesaid F.I.R. along with 11 named persons, but the charge sheet has been filed against only four, including the applicant. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 14.08.2025, which spans over six months at this stage.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant vehemently argues false implication, drawing this Court’s pointed attention to the statements of witnesses Salman, Khushnasib, and Anis recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. by the Investigating Officer. Crucially, none of these witnesses implicates the applicant by name. The injured eyewitness further specifies that one Jaid held a Tabal; while, Anis wielded a knife, attributing no overt act to the applicant. The post-

mortem report of the deceased unequivocally records the cause of death as head injury from a hard and blunt object, with no injuries linked to any weapon or role attributable to the applicant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that other two eyewitnesses, namely, Munis and Iftakar in their statements recorded before the Investigating Officer have named the applicant.

6. To this, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that, even though the aforesaid two witnesses have named the applicant in their respective statements, their versions are consistent and omnibus in nature, without attributing any specific role or overt act to the applicant. It is contended that no material is forthcoming to demonstrate any act of assault, instigation, abetment, or active participation on the part of the applicant in the alleged occurrence.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A careful scrutiny of the statements of the two alleged eyewitnesses, namely, Munis and Iftakar, reveals that no specific or overt role has been attributed to the applicant in the alleged occurrence. The said statements merely indicate his peripheral presence without detailing any act of commission or omission so as to prima facie connect him with the alleged offence. The prosecution case, at this stage, appears attenuated, inasmuch as, there is no cogent material linking the applicant either to the principal assault or to the