2025:UHC:10566 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 No.958 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.28 of 2024, under Section 103(1) and 238-A of B.N.S., 2023, registered at Police Station Kalsi, District Dehradun. 3. The First Information Report was lodged with the averments that on 09.08.2024, the applicant informed the complainant telephonically that his brother, namely, Hirday Prakash, had locked himself inside his room since 08.08.2024 and, despite repeated calls and knocking, was not opening the door. It was further alleged that, upon receiving such information, the complainant contacted his uncle, Mahendra Prakash, and one Ritesh, requesting them to verify the situation while he himself proceeded towards the village. It is stated that when the complainant, along with his brother Rakesh, reached the village, they found that other family members were making arrangements to bring the deceased, Hirday Prakash, down for being shifted to the ambulance. At that point in time, the deceased was reportedly still breathing. Thereafter, he was immediately taken to Lehman Hospital, Vikasnagar, where the attending doctors declared him dead. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant stands falsely implicated in the present offence, possesses 2025:UHC:10566 no prior criminal antecedents, and has remained incarcerated since 13.08.2024. He further submits that the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police averred that the deceased (father of the complainant) and the applicant (uncle) consumed liquor together; however, in his examination as PW-1 before the Court, the complainant has resiled therefrom, expressly denying that either consumed liquor. Furthermore, the complainant has denied the statement given to the police that he has seen his uncle wiping the blood from the floor of the house. He submits that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the same and will furnish the bail surety as per the satisfaction of this Court. 5. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 7. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant, namely, Ludar Prakash be released on bail, on executing personal bond by each one of them and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 27.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a2 0dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109C B987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.11.27 18:12:49 +05'30'