State of Uttarakhand v. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the

Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 217 of 2024, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The FIR was lodged by Constable Ajmer Singh, who is also posted in the same battalion as that of the Applicant, alleges that following a personal dispute on 28.04.2024 regarding the damage to a motorcycle borrowed by the applicant, the applicant, on the night of

29.04.2024 at around 10:30 PM, assaulted the informant with a brick while he was lying in bed.

3. The incident allegedly occurred within the PAC campus. The informant claims to have raised an alarm, upon which other personnel arrived and the applicant fled the spot. The informant was taken to the hospital, and the FIR was registered at 1:57 AM on 30.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations are highly exaggerated, motivated by a minor altercation between two colleagues in a controlled and secure barrack environment. It is contended that no prior enmity existed between the parties, nor has any 1 concrete motive been established to support an inference of a premeditated or murderous assault. He points to the absence of any mention of grievous injury in the FIR and emphasizes the fact that the informant himself lodged the complaint the next morning, suggesting that the injuries, if any, were not serious or incapacitating.

5. The Applicant further submits that the FIR was lodged after considerable deliberation and is not spontaneous. Attention is drawn to the lack of any truly independent public witness, since the alleged occurrence took place within the PAC quarters, and the witnesses cited by the State are fellow constables who may be influenced or biased.

6. It is also contended that the applicant was suspended from service solely on the basis of registration of the FIR, without a domestic inquiry, which has caused irreparable injury to his service career and reputation.

7. More crucially, learned counsel places strong reliance on the statement of PW1, Ajmer Singhthe informant and injured witnesswho, during the course of trial on 17.02.2025, categorically resiled from his earlier allegations, denying the role of the applicant in the incident, and was consequently declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that in view of this significant development, the substratum of the state’s case no longer survives.

8. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent government servant, and is the sole breadwinner of his family, including a minor son aged one year.

9. He has been in custody since 30.04.2024, and there is little likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. Learned counsel has urged that further incarceration of the applicant would serve no purpose and that he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.

10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that the offence under Section 2 307 IPC is grave and non-bailable, and the conduct attributed to the applicant is unbecoming of a disciplined armed police personnel. It is submitted that the State has supported its case not only with the version of the injured but also with the statements of two eyewitnesses, Constables Raghvendra and Vipin Tyagi, recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

11. These eyewitnesses are stated to have seen the applicant assaulting the informant and have corroborated the incident in their preliminary statements. The investigation further led to the recovery of a blood-stained brick allegedly used in the commission of the offence, and a blood-stained bed sheet from the spot, both of which were seized in accordance with law and are part of the charge sheet.

12. The State contends that the applicant’s custodial status is necessary to prevent any influence on the witnesses, who are posted in the same institutional set-up. The learned State Counsel contends that the mere fact that the informant has turned hostile is not sufficient ground for bail, Hence, it is urged that the bail application be rejected.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. This Court finds the FIR discloses an incident of interpersonal violence between members of a disciplined force, occurring within the barracks, allegedly involving the use of a brick as a weapon.

15. The allegations, if accepted in totality, do raise concerns regarding the gravity of the conduct. However, the Court is equally bound to evaluate the present status of the evidence in light of trial developments.

16. The most critical piece of evidencethe testimony of the complainant and injured witnesshas undergone a material change. From the statement of PW1 dated 17.02.2025, it is evident that the complainant has completely denied the role of the applicant in the 3 incident and has been declared hostile. This denial significantly weakens the State’s case, especially when the medical report and forensic findings are not independently sufficient to establish the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

17. In Ramesh v. State of Haryana, (2017) 1 SCC 529, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bail may be considered favourably where the prosecution evidence has significantly deteriorated. The principle was reaffirmed in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118. Further, in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, it was held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial, not to detain them as punishment.

18. The applicant, in this case, has no criminal antecedents, is a government servant under suspension, and has remained in custody for nearly a year. The trial is ongoing and may not conclude in the near future. The possibility of conviction, in the light of the hostile stance of the principal witness, appears bleak at this stage. There is no material suggesting that the applicant is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence.

19. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the nature of evidence now available, and the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. ORDER Let the applicant, Deepak Kumar, be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and shall not commit any offence while on bail. In case of breach of any of 4 these conditions, the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail. The bail application is allowed.

09.04.2025 (Ashish Naithani J.) NR/ 5

Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 217 of 2024, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The FIR was lodged by Constable Ajmer Singh, who is also posted in the same battalion as that of the Applicant, alleges that following a personal dispute on 28.04.2024 regarding the damage to a motorcycle borrowed by the applicant, the applicant, on the night of

29.04.2024 at around 10:30 PM, assaulted the informant with a brick while he was lying in bed.

3. The incident allegedly occurred within the PAC campus. The informant claims to have raised an alarm, upon which other personnel arrived and the applicant fled the spot. The informant was taken to the hospital, and the FIR was registered at 1:57 AM on 30.04.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations are highly exaggerated, motivated by a minor altercation between two colleagues in a controlled and secure barrack environment. It is contended that no prior enmity existed between the parties, nor has any 1 concrete motive been established to support an inference of a premeditated or murderous assault. He points to the absence of any mention of grievous injury in the FIR and emphasizes the fact that the informant himself lodged the complaint the next morning, suggesting that the injuries, if any, were not serious or incapacitating.

5. The Applicant further submits that the FIR was lodged after considerable deliberation and is not spontaneous. Attention is drawn to the lack of any truly independent public witness, since the alleged occurrence took place within the PAC quarters, and the witnesses cited by the State are fellow constables who may be influenced or biased.

6. It is also contended that the applicant was suspended from service solely on the basis of registration of the FIR, without a domestic inquiry, which has caused irreparable injury to his service career and reputation.

7. More crucially, learned counsel places strong reliance on the statement of PW1, Ajmer Singhthe informant and injured witnesswho, during the course of trial on 17.02.2025, categorically resiled from his earlier allegations, denying the role of the applicant in the incident, and was consequently declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that in view of this significant development, the substratum of the state’s case no longer survives.

8. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent government servant, and is the sole breadwinner of his family, including a minor son aged one year.

9. He has been in custody since 30.04.2024, and there is little likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. Learned counsel has urged that further incarceration of the applicant would serve no purpose and that he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.

10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that the offence under Section 2 307 IPC is grave and non-bailable, and the conduct attributed to the applicant is unbecoming of a disciplined armed police personnel. It is submitted that the State has supported its case not only with the version of the injured but also with the statements of two eyewitnesses, Constables Raghvendra and Vipin Tyagi, recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

11. These eyewitnesses are stated to have seen the applicant assaulting the informant and have corroborated the incident in their preliminary statements. The investigation further led to the recovery of a blood-stained brick allegedly used in the commission of the offence, and a blood-stained bed sheet from the spot, both of which were seized in accordance with law and are part of the charge sheet.

12. The State contends that the applicant’s custodial status is necessary to prevent any influence on the witnesses, who are posted in the same institutional set-up. The learned State Counsel contends that the mere fact that the informant has turned hostile is not sufficient ground for bail, Hence, it is urged that the bail application be rejected.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. This Court finds the FIR discloses an incident of interpersonal violence between members of a disciplined force, occurring within the barracks, allegedly involving the use of a brick as a weapon.

15. The allegations, if accepted in totality, do raise concerns regarding the gravity of the conduct. However, the Court is equally bound to evaluate the present status of the evidence in light of trial developments.

16. The most critical piece of evidencethe testimony of the complainant and injured witnesshas undergone a material change. From the statement of PW1 dated 17.02.2025, it is evident that the complainant has completely denied the role of the applicant in the 3 incident and has been declared hostile. This denial significantly weakens the State’s case, especially when the medical report and forensic findings are not independently sufficient to establish the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

17. In Ramesh v. State of Haryana, (2017) 1 SCC 529, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bail may be considered favourably where the prosecution evidence has significantly deteriorated. The principle was reaffirmed in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118. Further, in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, it was held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial, not to detain them as punishment.

18. The applicant, in this case, has no criminal antecedents, is a government servant under suspension, and has remained in custody for nearly a year. The trial is ongoing and may not conclude in the near future. The possibility of conviction, in the light of the hostile stance of the principal witness, appears bleak at this stage. There is no material suggesting that the applicant is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence.

19. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the nature of evidence now available, and the guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. ORDER Let the applicant, Deepak Kumar, be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and shall not commit any offence while on bail. In case of breach of any of 4 these conditions, the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail. The bail application is allowed.

09.04.2025 (Ashish Naithani J.) NR/ 5