Shivam Koli @ Shubham @ Bali vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Mahra, J

Applicant Shivam Koli @ Shubham @ Bali, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/ FIR No.037 of 2025, under Section 109 of BNS, registered at P. S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

As per the FIR, the incident took place on 13.01.2025, when the complainant and his family had installed a Rehri/Phar for selling Rewdi, Gajak etc. on the occasion of Lohri. At about 8:30 p.m., the applicant allegedly came to the Phar/shop of the complainant, drew a country-made pistol, and fired a shot towards the complainant’s son, namely Arun Gupta, resulting in an injury to his leg.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Section 109 of the BNS. He has further submitted that no ballistic examination of the bullet recovered from the leg of the injured has been conducted, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. He has further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated, and even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, the alleged injury is on the leg, which by itself does not attract the ingredients of Section 109 of the BNS. The applicant is in judicial custody since 13.01.2025.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and, therefore, he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

Having considered the submissions advanced, perused the record, and taking into account the nature of accusation, it is evident that the alleged injury is on the leg of the injured, which is not stated to be grievous or life threatening. The prosecution has also not produced any ballistic report to establish a link between the alleged firearm and the recovered bullet. The charge sheet has already been filed and, therefore, the entire evidence stands collected. The applicant has been in custody since 13.01.2025 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him incarcerated for an indefinite period, particularly when the trial is likely to take some time.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail.

The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.