No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 921 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Mukesh Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 02 of 2024, under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, registered at P.S.- Clement Town, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. An FIR was lodged by the sister of the deceased on 22.01.2024 alleging therein that on 22.01.2024, she came to know that his brother has been killed by any wild animal, but, after seeing the body of her brother, she expressed her apprehension that someone has killed his brother. FIR was lodged against unknown persons. During investigation, applicant was apprehended and chargesheet was filed against the applicant under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been chargesheeted on the basis of the statement of one Rajendra and Sunil. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of both Rajendra and Sunil under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, apparent contradictions are there inasmuch as Rajendra Singh has stated that there were four persons namely Rajendra, Sunil, Amit (deceased) and Mukesh and after consuming liquor on 21.01.2024 in the forest, Rajendra had left to his village while Mukesh, Sunil and Amit were staying back in the forest. While, as per the statement of Sunil, Rajendra and Sunil had left for the village after consuming liquor, while Amit and Mukesh were in the forest; and, also as per the statement of PW-2 Shyam Singh and PW-3 Parvesh Kumar, Sri Jeetar Singh, who was cousin brother of the deceased, have informed to the Parvez that Amit went to the forest in the morning of 22.01.2024. On this basis, story made by the prosecution is washed away. It is further submitted that the applicant has only been chargesheeted on the basis of statement given by Sunil and Rajendra and he is languishing in jail since 23.01.2024; that out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined, that there is no previous criminal history against the applicant; that there is no motive and only on the basis of the last seen, the applicant has been convicted. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature. 8. The prosecution case, at this stage, appears to rest primarily upon the statements recorded during the course of investigation, including the statements of the Sunil and Rajendra, who as per the prosecution are the eye-witnesses. The allegations have been crystallized through such statements and form the foundational basis of the prosecution narrative as reflected in the charge-sheet. 9. The credibility, consistency, voluntariness, and evidentiary worth of these statements are matters which can only be duly assessed during the course of trial, upon oath and subject to cross- examination.Any apparent inconsistencies, omissions, embellishments, or surrounding circumstances would necessarily require a full-fledged evidentiary appreciation, which is beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny at the stage of bail. 10. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the veracity, reliability, or ultimate probative value of the statements relied upon by the prosecution, and bearing in mind that the guilt of the accused is yet to be established in accordance with law, continued incarceration at this preliminary stage would require compelling justification, which does not prima facie emerge solely on the basis of recorded statements, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 13.02.2026 Ujjwal