Noor Alam and Another v. State of Uttarakhand

3. The FIR was registered after about seventeen days of the incident, on

10.04.2024, for the offences under Sections 323, 326, 504, and 34 IPC.

4. The injured Tanveer was medically examined, and his injury report showed both simple and grievous injuries. One injury was opined to be grievous and later resulted in permanent loss of vision. The statements of the victim and witnesses were recorded, and a charge sheet was filed against the present Applicants. The co-accused contractor, Sahid Ahmad, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 496 of 2024, his role being found distinct as the alleged instigator.

5. Heard learned counsel Mohd. Matlub for the Applicants and Learned A.G.A. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt for the State. Perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicants, Mr. Mohd. Matlub submitted that the Applicants are innocent labourers falsely implicated at the instance of the contractor. It was urged that no specific role has been assigned to them, specifically, and the allegations are omnibus and unsupported by independent witnesses. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of seventeen days, raising serious doubt about its authenticity and suggesting embellishment.

7. It was further contended that no weapon or incriminating article was recovered from the Applicants and that the medical report, though noting a grievous injury, does not conclusively establish that the same was caused by any weapon allegedly used by them.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused contractor, who is alleged to have instigated the assault, has already been granted anticipatory bail. It is therefore urged that the present Applicants, being mere subordinate, deserve parity. It is also submitted that the investigation stands concluded, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the Applicants, having no criminal antecedents, have been in custody since May and July 2024, respectively. 1st Bail Application No. 1653 of 2024, Noor alam and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the Applicants are serious and supported by cogent evidence. The statements of the injured and other witnesses recorded during the investigation are consistent and are completely corroborated by the medical evidence, including the surgical records. It is further urged that the assault was deliberate and violent, demonstrating a clear intention to cause grievous hurt.

10. It was further contended that the plea of parity with the co-accused contractor is misconceived, as his role was limited to alleged instigation. In contrast, the present Applicants are the direct perpetrator of the assault. The delay in lodging the FIR, according to the State, satisfactorily explains the victim’s hospitalisation and medical condition. It was submitted that releasing the Applicants on bail at this stage may lead to intimidation of witnesses, as they belong to the same locality, and that the nature and gravity of the offence justify their continued custody during trial.

11. This Court observes that the material on record discloses clear and direct allegations against the Applicants Noor Alam and Shahzad, of having jointly assaulted the complainant, Tanveer, with some other persons, following the instigation of their contractor. The injured has consistently stated that the Applicants struck him repeatedly with iron rods and sticks, and this version finds corroboration from the medical evidence, which confirms multiple injuries, including one grievous injury that resulted in the complete loss of vision in his left eye. The seriousness and permanence of the injury, coupled with the consistency of the statements, leave little room for doubt regarding the prima facie involvement of the Applicants.

12. The foremost aspect that weighs with this Court is the gravity of the offence and the severity of the injury inflicted. The record clearly indicates that the victim’s left eye had to be surgically removed as a consequence of the assault. Such an act cannot be treated as a trivial quarrel or an ordinary 1st Bail Application No. 1653 of 2024, Noor alam and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. scuffle; it reflects a deliberate and violent attack causing irreversible harm. The medical record and witness statements further indicate that the act was not spontaneous, but the result of a concerted assault committed in furtherance of a common intention. The seriousness of the offence, its violent nature, and its enduring consequences are factors that weigh heavily against the grant of bail.

13. The delay of about seventeen days in lodging the FIR has been urged on behalf of the Applicants to cast doubt on the State’s version. However, the material on record indicates that the complainant was under medical treatment for the injuries sustained in the incident and that his condition remained unstable during the intervening period. The explanation for the delay appears plausible and commensurate with the attending circumstances. The Court finds that such delay, by itself, does not impair the reliability of the State’s case when the medical records and contemporaneous statements are otherwise consistent.

14. The contention that no specific role has been assigned to the Applicants is devoid of merit. The allegations indicate that the present Applicants alongwith some other persons shared a common intention to execute the assault, and the degree of their participation is not in dispute. The collective conduct of the Applicants, the nature of the weapons allegedly used, and the injuries inflicted are all indicative of a coordinated and deliberate attack rather than an isolated act of individual aggression.

15. The plea of parity with co-accused Sahid Ahmad, the contractor, is misconceived. The contractor was granted bail on the finding that his role was confined to alleged instigation and did not involve direct participation in the assault. The present Applicants, on the other hand, is alleged to have executed the act that caused grievous injury and permanent disfigurement to the victim. The distinction between a mere abettor and a direct assailant is both factual and substantial. The Applicants cannot, therefore, claim parity with one whose role was found to be qualitatively distinct. 1st Bail Application No. 1653 of 2024, Noor alam and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.

16. The nature of the accusation, the extent of injury, the seriousness of the offence, and the surrounding circumstances are all relevant considerations in the exercise of discretion for bail. In the present case, the allegations are grave, the injury is grievous and permanent, and the evidence collected during the investigation supports the State’s version. The incident appears to have been premeditated, and the outcome has caused lasting physical impairment to the victim. These factors collectively justify the continued custody of the Applicants pending trial.

17. The material on record, when taken as a whole, discloses a strong prima facie case against the Applicants. The consistent statements of the victim and witnesses, the corroborative medical record, and the permanent nature of the injury together establish a serious and deliberate act of violence. No mitigating factor or circumstance has been shown that would warrant the grant of bail at this stage. Having regard to the totality of the facts, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicants. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, bail application, BA1 No. 1653 of 2024 (Noor Alam and Another v. State of Uttarakhand) is hereby rejected. It is clarified that any observations made herein are confined to the consideration of bail and shall not influence the merits of the trial.

20.09.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) 1st Bail Application No. 1653 of 2024, Noor alam and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.