2025:UHC:1801 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 207 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Saini, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for the informant. 4. The present applicant ‘Farooq’ is in judicial custody in relation to First Information Report bearing FIR No. 616 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024 P.S. Roorkee, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 108 of B.N.S., 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and in fact the applicant himself brought the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead. 6. He also submits that the other co-accused, one of the family members of the applicant, have been granted interim bail by the coordinate bench. He further submits that there is no specific demand of dowry and the deceased died due to poisoning and there is no evidence of any injury on the body of the deceased. 7. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant married with the deceased in the year 2015 and therefore there was no any question for demand of dowry and the chargesheet has already been filed. 8. On the other side, learned A.G.A. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht submits that as per the post- mortem report the death was caused due to strangulation. 9. Apart from this, he also gives reference of inquest report and in the inquest report also the deceased was died due to strangulation. 10. Learned counsel for the informant Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad also submits that in 2025:UHC:1801 paragraph 6 a false statement has been made that the deceased died due to poisoning, which is evident from the fact that as per the post-mortem report and the inquest report the deceased was died due to strangulation. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that there is a strangulation mark in the neck of the deceased, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.03.2025 PR 2025:UHC:1801