IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2208 of 2024 Akshay ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent with First Bail Application No.2210 of 2024 Ajay Alias Kaka ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Anuj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the complainant through video conferencing. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) Both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are being decided by this common order. 2. The applicants Akshay and Ajay Alias Kaka are in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.470/2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 25/3 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 11.06.2024 at about 9:00 PM, a first information report was lodged by the informant alleging therein that co-accused Prashant along with two associates came in the house and called the son of the informant namely Vivek (the deceased) and forcefully took the son of the informant from his house on the pretext of some work, but his son did not return till late night. Thereafter, searching a lot by the police personnel, his son found dead. 2 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel of the applicant is that there are major discrepancies come up that have surfaced the trial which makes the prosecution case doubtful consequentially, resulting in false implications in the present matter against the accused applicant. 6. At the very outset, the learned counsel of the applicant stressed on the prosecution witness PW1, namely, Sukhvir Singh S/o Chet Ram in his testimony, as per paragraph 28 which categorically states that on the 12th of June, 2024 at 12:21 P.M. in the afternoon. He performed the last rites of his deceased son. Meaning thereby, the cremation of the deceased Vivek S/o Sukhvir was done on 12th of June, 2024. Again, this witness PW1 in his testimony, Paragraph No.35. He affirms his statement when put a suggested question and he categorically said that it is wrong to say that he did not criminate his son on 12th of June, 2024 at 1:00 O’ Clock in the afternoon. 7. Another major document of the prosecution, the post- mortem report as Annexure No.3 was also highlighted before the Court by the learned counsel for the applicant, whereby, it was pointed out that as per the post-mortem report, the post-mortem of the deceased Vivek S/o Sukhvir, R/o Dadli, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand was done on 13th of June, 2024 at 12:50 P.M. at the Government Combined Hospital, Roorkee. Thereby, showing before this Court that how can a post- mortem of a dead body be conducted after the same has been cremated a day earlier, according to the Hindu rituals, whereby the dead body is cremated by burning a pyre that reduces the mortal body into ashes and dust. 8. The bail was opposed by the learned Government Advocate Shri Pradeep Lohani, with a contentions that whatever 3 grounds of bail that have been placed before the Hon’ble Court which based on records that is those are nothing but just a clerical or typographical error. It is a heinous offence and if the applicant accused is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses and there are no ground for bail and the bail hould be rejected. 9. After hearing the parties, the learned counsel of the parties and perusal of the records, at this juncture, I find it a fit case for bail. Rest, it will be seen during the trial when a detailed order is passed, it may affect the trial. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that the bail application of the applicant deserves to be allowed. 11. The bail applications are allowed. 12. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each by one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 24.02.2025 Ravi