##PAGE1##

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions

No

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures 2026:UHC:4009

BA1 No. 594 of 2026

Sameer alis Chikna ....Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the

Applicant—Javed, S/o Tahir Ahmad, R/o Shakti Mohalla, Roorkee,

Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, who is in judicial

custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 99 of 2026, registered

at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar, for offences

punishable under Sections 25(1-A) and 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, while pressing the bail

application, submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in

the present case and is in judicial custody since 16.03.2026. It is

contended that the Applicant has not committed the alleged offence

and was neither present at the spot nor was any incriminating article

recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that the

Applicant has been implicated on the basis of a concocted story.

Learned counsel further contended that no videography of the alleged

raid and recovery was conducted by the police; however, in the FIR,

an incorrect fact regarding photography has been mentioned, which

creates serious doubt regarding the fairness and authenticity of the

alleged recovery proceedings.

6. It is further contended that no independent witness was

associated during the alleged search and seizure despite the place

being a public area, thereby reflecting non-compliance of the

mandatory legal provisions governing search and seizure. Learned

counsel also submitted that no ballistic report has been brought on

record and, in absence of such scientific evidence, it cannot

conclusively be established that the alleged firearms were functional or

fall within the mischief of the relevant provisions of the Arms Act. It is

also submitted that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents.

7. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application

and contended that during checking, from the possession of the

Applicant, recovery of four country-made pistols of .315 bore, one

open country-made pistol of .315 bore, one country-made pistol of 12

bore, one half-manufactured country-made pistol, one country-made

rifle of .22 bore, along with equipment used for manufacturing

country-made pistols, was effected.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of

the material available on record, this Court finds that considering the

overall facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any

opinion on the merits thereof, the Applicant has been able to make out

a fit case for grant of bail.

9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

10. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal

bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the court concerned.

11. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only

for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall

not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

12. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

( Ashish Naithani, J.)

21.05.2026

Shiksha