2025:UHC:10142 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 3 2 4 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. P.S. Dhami, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Applicant–Manoj Kumar Lohiya, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 06 of 2024, under Sections 108, 308 (4), 351 (3) B.N.S. and under Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Nachni District Pithoragarh has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the F.I.R. lodged by the informant on 09.08.2024, her daughter Babita (since deceased), aged 21 years, who was married on 07.12.2022 and residing at her matrimonial home, was allegedly being harassed by the applicant. It is stated that 15–20 days prior to her death, the deceased informed the informant that she had once booked a taxi about six months earlier and the driver, introducing himself as Manoj Kumar (the present applicant), had exchanged mobile numbers with her. It is further alleged that after some subsequent interactions, the applicant started pressuring the deceased to marry him, despite being a married person himself with children. It is alleged that he threatened to kill her father and brother if she refused and the deceased is said to have told the informant that the applicant was blackmailing her by threatening to make her videos viral and was extorting money from her. It is alleged 2025:UHC:10142 that she had already paid ₹20,000/-, and the applicant was continuously demanding money and pressuring her for marriage. On 19.07.2024, the day of the incident, the deceased allegedly told the informant that she was extremely distressed because the applicant was making her videos viral and coercing her. Later that day, the deceased died. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated; that, the F.I.R. has been lodged with an unexplained delay of about 20 days, as the incident took place on 19.07.2024 while the F.I.R. was lodged only on 09.08.2024 and except for stating that the informant was waiting for the post-mortem report, no satisfactory explanation for the delay has been provided by the prosecution; that, the deceased was a married woman with two minor children, yet neither her husband nor her in-laws lodged any report regarding the alleged harassment by the applicant. It is the mother of the deceased who lodged the F.I.R. after an inordinate delay of 20 days. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is in judicial custody since 03.10.2024; that, though there are over 30 prosecution witnesses but, only 9 witnesses have been examined so far. It is argued that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Pithoragarh and there is no possibility of his absconding. The bail application filed before the court below was rejected on 04.01.2025. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail application considering the seriousness of the allegations but would fairly concede that the F.I.R. was 2025:UHC:10142 lodged after a delay of 20 days. He also acknowledged that the applicant is in judicial custody since 03.10.2024, his earlier bail application was rejected on 24.07.2024, and only nine out of thirty witnesses have been examined so far. 9. It is not disputed that the F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the deceased although the deceased was a married woman, and the complaint was not made by her husband or in-laws. It is also admitted that the delay of 20 days in lodging the F.I.R. has not been satisfactorily explained except for the assertion that the informant was awaiting the post-mortem report. The applicant is in jail since 03.10.2024 and only nine witnesses examined so far out of thirty. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 12. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 13. 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 Mahr a, J.) 17.10.2025 Mamta