No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1872 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shailabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Mohd. Tarik, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 29 of 2022, under Sections 365, 302 and 201 of IPC, registered at P.S.- Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. The applicant, who is father of the deceased, lodged a missing-report that he left his son at home at about 10 a.m. in the morning on 15.02.2022, but, he was not being seen even after they have search him in the whole locality. Applicant is resident of Village Sisoli Kala, Pulbhatta. The body of applicant’s son was found on the next day i.e. on 16.02.2022 at Kichha Dam Canal in village Dhakia. The body was identified by maternal uncle of the deceased. By naked eye, injury marks were found present on both sides of the neck. The post-mortem was conducted, in which it was found that cause of death was due to throttle. Thereafter, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Shadab Malik (maternal uncle of the deceased) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, he has submitted that the accused was his nephew, who was suffering from disease haemophilia due to which the applicant has killed him without any reason as lot of money has been spent in his treatment. On the basis of his submission, the accused was arrested. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on further questioning Shadab Malik in his statement, has submitted that not much money was spent in his nephew’s treatment as he was treated by Doctor Sazid Hussain at Kichha, who used to charge Rs. 100-200 per visit for the treatment. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that the Investigating Officer examined the CCTV footage, wherein, it has been revealed that the applicant was driving a motorcycle, wherein, his son i.e. the deceased was sitting in front and he was last seen at 10:40 a.m. going towards Sitarganj and the applicant was seen returning alone at 1:17 p.m. and the deceased was not seen with him. Learned State Counsel further submits that on the basis of the statement of Shadab Malik and on the basis of CCTV report, prima facie, it appears that the role of the applicant is involved in the crime. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail and the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The present bail application is rejected. (Alok Mahra J.) 04.07.2025 Ujjwal