Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

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

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1/ 1010/ 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh along with Mr. V.S.

Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Applicant- Majid, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 137 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 190, 191(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail.

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

5. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged on 12.02.2025 alleging therein that on 07.02.2025 at about 8.00 P.M., co-accused persons namely Saharukh, Saud, Salman and Moin assaulted the informant out of previous enmity, but the informant somehow managed to escape. It is further alleged that on 09.02.2025 at about 12.00 noon, the present applicant along with the aforesaid co-accused again assaulted the informant and during the said incident, co-accused Saharukh opened fire from a country-made pistol.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that, the FIR suffers from an unexplained delay of five days; that, no specific role of assault has been assigned to the present applicant, and the act of firing has been attributed to co-accused Saharukh alone; that, the applicant is alleged only to have been present with a wooden stick in his hand; that, the medical report relating to the incident dated 09.02.2025 shows only simple injuries on the informant, whereas grievous injuries were allegedly caused by firearms; that, the opened fired was done by co-accused Saharukh.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would urther submit that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.04.2025; that, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and in any case, even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, the stringent provisions under Sections 109(1) and 118 B.N.S. are not attracted against him. At the most, Section 117(2) B.N.S. may apply, which is bailable in nature.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused persons encircled the lathi-danda informant and assaulted him with , whereafter co-accused Saharukh opened fire, though the shot missed. However, learned State counsel fairly admitted that the applicant has been in custody since 28.04.2025.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that the specific act of firing has been attributed to co-accused Saharukh and not to the present applicant. The applicant is alleged only to have been armed with a wooden stick, and the medical report of the informant does not indicate any grievous injury attributable to such weapon. The FIR was lodged after a delay of five days without any satisfactory explanation. The applicant has remained in custody since 28.04.2025 and is not shown to have any criminal antecedents.

10. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

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

[

(Alok Mahra, J.)

02.09.2025

Mamta