No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1639 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Mohd. Raees @ Babu, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 85 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of BNS, registered at P.S.- Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased, wherein, it was alleged that the applicant alongwith another co-accused have conspired and murdered his brother. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was working with the applicant and the applicant had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased. The missing report was lodged on 17.03.2025 by the other co- accused wherein she has submitted that her husband is missing since 15.03.2025. During investigation, the body of the deceased was recovered on 17.03.2025 from the nearby agricultural field where crop of wheat was growing. The post-mortem of the body was conducted on 18.03.2025, but, after conducting the post-mortem, the doctor has found that cause of death could not be ascertained, hence, viscera was preserved and thereafter it was sent for forensic examination. On last several dates, State was directed to file the viscera report, but, as per learned State Counsel, despite several reminders sent to the concerned authorities, the viscera report is not available with the State. This is a very sorry state of affairs. Post-mortem was conducted on 18.03.2025 and thereafter viscera was sent for forensic examination, but, even after lapse of more than one year, the viscera report is not sent to the learned State Counsel. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence against him; that since the cause of death is not ascertained, therefore, the death is not murder, as defined under Section 101 of BNS. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. would submit that as per the CDR of the applicant’s phone, the location of the applicant from 15.02.2025 to 17.03.2025 was found in the village where the deceased resided, whereas, the house of the applicant is in some other village. 8. In reply to this argument, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that only on the basis of the location of the CDR report, the applicant cannot be made an accused in the case. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the cause of death is not ascertained and moreover considering the laxity on the part of the Investigating Officer in not supplying the forensic report even after lapse of more than one year, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. 13. Senior Superintendant of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby directed to submit his report within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order as to why the viscera report was not sent to the learned State Counsel in the present case despite repeated reminders. 14. List this matter on 04.05.2026. 15. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Senior Superintendant of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar through e-mail also. (Alok Mahra J.) 15.04.2026 Ujjwal