2025:UHC:6633 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 29.07.2025 BA1/1957/2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant- Smt. Babita, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 752 of 2024, under Sections 309(6), 333, 3(5), 109 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar has sought her release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged on 29.07.2024 alleging that on 26.07.2024 at about 12:00 noon, two unknown miscreants entered the house of the informant and assaulted his wife. At that time, the present applicant, who is a servant in the household, was present in the house. It was further alleged that the miscreants appeared to be known to the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case; that, the applicant is not named in the FIR; that, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of three days; that, there is no independent public witness to the incident; and no recovery has been made from her possession. He would further submit that the applicant is a woman, has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and has been in custody since 06.08.2024. On these grounds, 2025:UHC:6633 her release on bail has been sought. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application, contending that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature; that, the involvement of the applicant surfaced during the investigation based on the statements of the complainant and the injured; that, the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained on the ground that the complainant was occupied with the medical treatment of his wife. 8. Learned State counsel would further submit that the applicant being a domestic help, was present at the time of the incident and played an active role in facilitating the entry of the miscreants; that, the applicant brought the miscreants inside the house, offered them water, and later, along with them, proceeded to break open a locked room and when the injured woman objected, the applicant along with the co-accused allegedly strangled her with a dupatta, rendering her unconscious, assuming she had died, and fled from the spot. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, nature and gravity of the allegations, specific role attributed to the applicant in the commission of the offence, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there is sufficient material indicating the applicant’s involvement in commission of crime. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. 11. The 1st bail application is, therefore, rejected. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6633