2025:UHC:9637 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 31.10.2025 BA3 No.61 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned legal aid counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Vikram, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 287 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 504 & 34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. This is the applicant’s 3rd bail application. The 1st and 2nd bail applications were rejected on merits vide orders dated 03.10.2023 and 19.06.2025 respectively. 6. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. dated 17.06.2022 was lodged alleging that at about 6:30 a.m., when the complainant’s wife Bhagwati had gone to the cattle shed to milk the cow, she was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons, including the present applicant. On her alarm, the complainant, his father Angad Lal, and his son rushed to the spot, where they were also assaulted with a sharp-edged weapon and an iron rod, resulting in the death of Angad Lal on the spot and injuries to the complainant’s family. 7. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He relies on the testimony of Bhagwati, who stated before the Court that the incident arose out of a dispute regarding the accused attempting to erect a thatch (chapper) on the complainant’s land, and upon her objection, abuses and a scuffle ensued. It is submitted that the allegation that the accused persons jointly assaulted the deceased with a sharp- 2025:UHC:9637 edged weapon (pathal) and an iron rod is not borne out from the medical evidence. 8. It is pointed out that the post-mortem report records the cause of death as internal bleeding due to head injury, yet no external head injury or any grievous injury was found on the deceased; that, except for a few minor superficial scratches, all injuries were simple in nature and not attributable to any sharp- edged weapon or iron rod. The medical findings do not corroborate the prosecution version and create serious doubt regarding its credibility. 9. Learned Legal Aid Counsel also submits that the incident was in fact a verbal altercation arising from the complainant’s objection to the construction of the thatch; that the deceased, aged about 71 years and suffering from age-related ailments, collapsed due to a sudden fall in blood pressure during the commotion; and that the complainant’s family has taken undue advantage of this natural incident by projecting it as a case of assault. It is submitted that even the doctor conducting the post-mortem acknowledged absence of any head injury, and the medical opinion does not correspond with the alleged manner of assault. 10. It is further submitted that the case, at best, falls under Section 304 I.P.C. and not Section 302 I.P.C.; that the essential ingredients of murder are not made out; that out of thirteen prosecution witnesses only seven witnesses have been examined and there exist material contradictions in their depositions; and that PW6 and PW7 have denied the prosecution story; that, the applicant is in judicial custody for the last three years, four months, and thirteen days, having undergone more than one-third of the maximum sentence prescribed, thereby attracting the benefit of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. 11. Learned legal aid counsel would further submit that the charge sheet has been filed; there is no possibility of tampering with evidence; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and is not likely to abscond; and the trial is likely to 2025:UHC:9637 take considerable time. Hence, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application, submitting that the allegations are grave and that the applicant’s earlier bail applications were rejected on merits. He argued that the applicant had assaulted the deceased, an elderly man aged about 70 years, who later succumbed to the injuries. However, the learned State Counsel fairly conceded that, as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was intracranial bleeding resulting from a head injury, and that the post-mortem findings and the doctor’s statement are not in full corroboration. He further admitted that the applicant is in custody for the last 3 years, 4 months, and 13 days. 13. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the nature of allegations, the medical evidence placed on record, and the admitted fact that the applicant has remained in custody for over three years and four months, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the applicant during the pendency of the trial would not serve any useful purpose. The Court also takes note of the fact that there is no full corroboration between the prosecution version and the medical evidence, that only seven out of thirteen prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 14. Accordingly, the 3rd bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (ALOK MAHRA, J.) 31.10.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:9637