2025:UHC:7534 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 26th AUGUST, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.365 of 2025 Haamid ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Sukhbani Singh, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. Applicant, aged about 60 years, is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Case Crime No.83 of 2024, registered at Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. 2. The First Information Report was registered on 09.02.2024. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant-accused committed the murder of his wife by plugging electricity current into her bed on 09.02.2024. The First Information Report was lodged by the 1 2025:UHC:7534 informant Mohd. Nadeem, the son of the deceased. During the investigation, half burnt bed and wire were recovered from the spot. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was cardiac arrest due to electric shock due to ante-mortem electrocution. 4. Heard Ms. Sukhbani Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent. 5. Ms. Sukhbani Singh, Advocate, submitted that the informant Mohd. Nadeem (PW1) has not supported the prosecution case. He stated that he saw that his mother lying on the ground and at that time she had live bare electric wires in her hands. 6. Ms. Sukhbani Singh, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is in custody since 09.02.2024. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. 7. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has conceded that the sons (PW1 and PW2) of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the 2 2025:UHC:7534 personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 10. The Bail Application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Haamid be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:26.08.2025 Neha 3 NEHA BISHT Digitally signed by NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008e9a4a8038ee7326b08b2d0e018b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB9677068452F32DE6BA960BFE64D819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0F92, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.08.26 18:10:40 +05'30'