HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application No. 2324 of 2024 Aavesh Ansari ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .….Opposite Party Present:- Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Aavesh Ansari is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 181 of 2024, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 04.06.2024, in the midnight, at 01:00 a.m., the applicant along with others throttled the deceased and killed her. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no material to implicate the applicant; according to the FIR, it is case of throttling, whereas the prosecution has come up with a case that with the help of a pillow, smothering was done. In addition to it, it is argued that the statement of the eyewitness Simran Kaur is not reliable because she is a young girl of 13 years; she did not raise any alarm, when the incident was taking place; post incident, according to her, she raised an alarm. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a case of death by asphyxia and the prosecution case is supported by the eyewitness 2 Simran Kaur. She submits that, in fact, as per the prosecution, at the instance of the daughter-in-law of the deceased, the applicant and others killed the deceased. 6. The FIR itself records that Simran Kaur had informed the informant that the deceased has been killed by the applicant and others by throttling. During investigation, Simran Kaur was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. She has supported the prosecution case. According to her, when she saw the incident, she tried to raise an alarm, but she was also attacked. She wanted to awake her maternal grandfather, but in the meanwhile, the applicant and others ran away. 7. In the FIR, the applicant has been named as a person, who killed the deceased. There is an eye-witness to it. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.11.2025 Avneet/