IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 2550 of 2024 Sarvesh Kumar …...Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …...Respondent Ms. Divya Jain, learned Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Nathani, J. (Oral) The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the applicant, Sarvesh Kumar, seeking his release on bail in connection with FIR No. 377 of 2024, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Dehradun. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.09.2024 and is facing trial for offences under Sections 304 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant contends that he is entitled to bail on various legal and factual grounds. 2. The case arises from an incident that occurred on 01.09.2024, in which the applicant, Sarvesh Kumar, allegedly got into an altercation with his elder brother, Yogesh Kumar. The argument escalated into a physical fight, during which the applicant allegedly struck the deceased, leading to head injuries. The deceased was taken to the Doon Hospital, where he was initially treated and discharged. However, his condition later worsened, and he succumbed to his injuries on 02.09.2024. 3. Heard and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Divya Jain, contends that the alleged offence does not amount to murder, as there was no premeditated intention to cause grievous harm. The incident arose from a sudden domestic quarrel, and the applicant had no motive to kill his own brother. It is argued that the death of the deceased was not an intentional act but rather an unfortunate consequence of a heated altercation. 5. The applicant has no prior criminal record and is a permanent resident of Dehradun. It is submitted that he has strong local ties and is willing to abide by all conditions imposed by the Court. The applicant’s counsel argues that since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed, further incarceration serves no meaningful purpose. 6 Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. S.C. Dumka argues that the allegations against the applicant are serious and that his actions directly resulted in the death of the deceased. The Stateemphasises that the post-mortem report establishes a clear link between the injuries inflicted during the altercation and the death of the victim. 7. The counter affidavit filed by the investigating officer states that the medical report confirms that the deceased suffered a severe head injury due to the assault by the applicant. 8. The learned counsel for the State further submits that the gravity of the offense requires that the applicant remain in custody to ensure that justice is served. It is argued that granting bail in such cases would set a wrong precedent and could undermine the law's deterrent effect. 9. Upon a careful examination of the submissions made by both parties, this Court finds that while the offence is serious, certain mitigating circumstances warrant consideration. The incident appears to have been a result of a sudden altercation between two brothers, without premeditation. The absence of prior enmity or a clear motive suggests that this is not a case of intentional homicide but rather a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. 10. The medical report, while indicating head injuries, does not conclusively establish that the injuries alone were the immediate cause of death. The fact that the deceased was discharged after initial treatment raisesan assertion that he would recover soon and that the injuries he suffered were not life- threating. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant, who is the younger brother of the deceased, had also sustained severe injuries during the scuffle between the two. 12. The contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the sequence of events leading to the incident further raise questions that warrant examination during the trial. 13. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court without delving into the merits of the case, is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The present bail application stands allowed accordingly. (Ashish Naithani, J) 12.03.2025