2025:UHC:11022 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 BA2 No.312 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. R.S. Sammal and Ms. Sarita Bisht, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This is second bail application moved by the applicant, seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.42 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Lamgarha, District Almora. 3. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 22.05.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no previous criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 30.12.2023. Learned counsel contends that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and, as per the version of the complainant, the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with a muffler; however, the post-mortem report does not reveal any abrasion or lacerated wounds on the body of the deceased, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution story. It is further contended that the applicant was not supplied with a written copy of the grounds of arrest at the time of his apprehension and was merely served with an arrest memo containing a routine column specifying “reason of arrest”. Learned counsel submits that furnishing of written grounds of arrest is a constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and non-compliance 2025:UHC:11022 with this requirement vitiates the legality of the arrest. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused, namely, Harshvardhan, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in BA2 No. 227 of 2025 vide order dated 27.11.2025. It is contended that the case of the present applicant stands on identical footing to that of the aforesaid co-accused, and therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that in the event the applicant is granted bail, She undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail and shall furnish adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 6. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. 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 on the ground of parity. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely, Dimple be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 11.12.2025 Arpan