2025:UHC:10802 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 / 8 7 8 / 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Applicant-Saurabh alias Saurav alias Gaurav, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 183 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238, 309(6), 317(2) B.N.S. and 4/25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Initially, an FIR was lodged on 03.12.2024 by the informant alleging that his 42-year-old brother-in-law (since deceased) was missing. During investigation, the deceased was recovered from a forest area on the Nagala–Rudrapur to Kichha road on 04.12.2024. The post-mortem report was prepared, and the cause of death was found to be due to ante-mortem injury. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that, he was arrested merely on the ground that both the deceased and the applicant were working in a factory at SIDCUL, Rudrapur and were seen together in CCTV footage riding the scooty belonging to the deceased, which was later recovered from the 2025:UHC:10802 applicant’s possession. 6. It is contended that the material relied upon by the prosecution is purely circumstantial; that the deceased and the applicant were friends and therefore used to travel together on the same scooty to the factory, making the applicant’s implication wholly unfounded; that he is languishing in custody since 03.12.2024; that, the charge-sheet has already been filed; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence; and that, as the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application; however, he admitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 03.12.2024 and that the charge- sheet has already been filed. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 04.12.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:10802