Vishal v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

1. The present bail application has been filed by the Applicant, Vishal, seeking enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 457 of 2025, registered on 27.04.2025 at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, under Sections 5(2), 7(2), 8(2), 333, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The case, as set out in the FIR lodged by informant Sushil Kumar, is that on 01.04.2025 at about 07:00 P.M., the Applicant, along with his relatives Mahipal, Mainpal, and Vishant, all residents of village Maheshwari, entered into the house of the informant armed with lathis and other weapons. It is alleged that the Applicant assaulted the informant’s wife, Reena Devi, by striking her face multiple times with a brick, causing profuse bleeding and grievous injuries. The assailants allegedly threatened the informant and his family with dire consequences before fleeing the spot.

3. The injured Reena Devi was immediately taken for treatment to the Government Hospital at Laksar, from where she was referred first to Haridwar and then to AIIMS Rishikesh due to the severity of First Bail Application No. 1114 of 2025-----------Vishalv. State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. her injuries. The FIR was registered on 27.04.2025, after a delay of 26 days from the date of the alleged occurrence. The informant explained the delay by stating that he was occupied in arranging medical treatment for his wife.

4. The Applicant was arrested on 07.05.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then. His bail application before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, was rejected on 09.06.2025. The present application under Section 483 BNSS is the first before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri Vaibhav Singh Chauhan assisted by Ms. Naina Mittal, submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated due to village enmity and no role can be attributed to him in the alleged incident.

6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Applicant that there is an unexplained delay of 26 days in the registration of the FIR. The alleged occurrence took place on 01.04.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 27.04.2025. The explanation offered, that the informant was engaged in the treatment of his wife, is vague and cannot justify such a long delay. This delay, according to learned Counsel, creates serious doubt about the prosecution version and suggests afterthought and embellishment.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that no independent witness from the locality has been examined, although the alleged occurrence took place in a densely populated area. The story has, therefore, been concocted after legal consultation. First Bail Application No. 1114 of 2025-----------Vishalv. State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J.

8. It was further submitted that the alleged use of a brick would not attract Section 8(2) BNS as a “dangerous weapon,” and at most the offence, if any, would fall within Section 7(2) BNS, which is bailable. Moreover, no recovery has been made from the Applicant, and there is no clinching evidence to connect him to the incident.

9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant also pointed out that the Applicant is a young married man with a two-month-old child, having permanent residence in District Haridwar. He has no criminal antecedents, is not a flight risk, and is ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application. He submitted that the allegations levelled against the Applicant are of a grave nature. It is specifically alleged that the Applicant struck the informant’s wife on the face with a brick, causing grievous injuries and permanent loss of vision in one eye.

11. The learned A.G.A. argued that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained by the informant, who was occupied in arranging immediate medical treatment for his wife. It was submitted that such a delay, being bona fide and incidental to the circumstances, cannot enure to the benefit of the Applicant.

12. It was further contended that the statements of the informant, the injured Reena Devi, and independent witnesses, namely Vipin Kumar, Pappu, Sukhrampal, and Sarjeet, recorded under Section First Bail Application No. 1114 of 2025-----------Vishalv. State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. 180 BNSS, corroborate the prosecution version and directly attribute a specific role to the Applicant.

13. Learned A.G.A. emphasised that the medical evidence, supported by the testimony of Dr Akshay Kapoor and Dr Likhita Singh, clearly establishes the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim. Given the gravity of the offence and its impact on the victim, the Applicant does not deserve the indulgence of bail.

14. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State, and have carefully perused the record.

15. Learned A.G.A., has drawn attention to the delay of 26 days in lodging the FIR, which prima facie does raise doubts. It is settled law that a delay in the registration of the FIR, unless satisfactorily explained, casts a shadow on the spontaneity and genuineness of the prosecution's version.

16. In the present case, the informant has explained the delay by stating that he was occupied in arranging medical treatment for his wife. While this circumstance cannot be entirely disbelieved, the lapse of nearly four weeks is nonetheless inordinate. Whether such delay stands satisfactorily justified, or whether it affords scope for embellishment, remains a matter to be examined at the stage of trial.

17. The role attributed to the Applicant is specific, namely, of striking the victim’s face with a brick. The learned Counsel for the State contends that such an act falls within the ambit of Section 8(2) First Bail Application No. 1114 of 2025-----------Vishalv. State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. BNSS, as it involves the use of a dangerous weapon. In contrast, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that a brick does not fall within the category of a “dangerous weapon” and, at the highest, Section 7(2) BNSS would be attracted, which is bailable in nature.

18. This contention is not without substance, as courts have consistently held that whether a particular object qualifies as a “dangerous weapon” depends upon the manner of its use and the attendant circumstances of the assault. At this stage, it would be premature to conclusively hold that the allegation would sustain the graver charge under Section 8(2) BNSS.

19. The learned Counsel for the State has further emphasized the statements of witnesses, namely Vipin Kumar, Pappu, Sukhrampal, and Sarjeet, in support of the prosecution version. However, whether these witnesses are truly independent or partisan remains a matter of appreciation of evidence. The learned Counsel for the Applicant, on the other hand, submits that no independent public witness from the locality was examined, despite the incident having occurred in a populated village. These rival submissions, once again, are matters to be assessed at the stage of trial.

20. It is also pertinent to note that the Applicant has been in custody since 07.05.2025, and the charge sheet has already been filed. Hence, further custodial interrogation is not warranted.

21. The primary objectives of pre-trial detention are either investigative necessity or to ensure the presence of the accused First Bail Application No. 1114 of 2025-----------Vishalv. State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J. during trial. Once the investigation stands concluded and the accused is shown to have established roots in society, continued incarceration partakes the character of punishment rather than prevention, which the law does not countenance.

22. The Applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Haridwar district, and has family responsibilities, including a two-month-old child. The apprehension of State Counsel that he may abscond or tamper with witnesses can be addressed by suitable bail conditions. It must be borne in mind that the presumption of innocence is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, and pre-trial detention should not be extended unnecessarily.

23. Weighing the rival considerations, it is evident that the offence alleged is serious, and the injuries caused to the victim are indeed grievous. However, at the stage of bail, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the merits. What weighs with this Court is that the Applicant has been in custody since 07.05.2025, the investigation is complete, the trial may take time, and the possibility of conviction under the aggravated charge will depend upon the appreciation of evidence at trial.

24. In the totality of the circumstances, balancing the seriousness of the allegations on the one hand and the right to liberty and presumption of innocence on the other, I am of the considered view that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, subject to stringent conditions. First Bail Application No. 1114 of 2025-----------Vishalv. State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J. ORDER The bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant-Vishal, be released on bail, upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The release of the Applicant on bail shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The Applicant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed, unless exempted by the Court concerned. (ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence any witness in any manner. (iii) The Applicant shall not commit any offence while on bail. It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to move an application for cancellation of bail. Arti (Ashish Naithani, J.)

20.09.2025 First Bail Application No. 1114 of 2025-----------Vishalv. State of Uttarakhand 7 Ashish Naithani J.