No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1743 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Renu Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0075 of 2025, under Section 103(1) and 238 of BNS, registered at P.S. Jhabrera, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased in which it was alleged that applicant alongwith three other persons severely beat up the complainant and then laid him beside the road and runned Auto over his body, due to which, he suffered serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital and while reaching there, he died. As per the FIR, there were two eye-witnesses to the incident namely Satyapal and Satish. During investigation, the other three persons named in the FIR were not made accused and only the applicant has been chargesheeted. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case; that the applicant has been made an accused only on the basis of the CCTV footage in which it is seen that the applicant and the deceased came on a motorcycle in the liquor shop at about 08:56 AM and thereafter they left that place at about 03:32 PM. Both of them were heavily drunk and the in-charge of the canteen help them to sit in the Auto; that during investigation, statements of one Kala was also recorded in which it is submitted that the Auto driven by the applicant was overturned and the applicant and the other person (deceased) were laying on the ground, therefore, Kalu with the help of others, put them up in the Auto and he left; that there is no eye-witness to the incident. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report of the deceased reflects that there are several ante mortem injuries in the body of the deceased, which could not have been caused by running him over by the Auto. It is also submitted that the Auto of the applicant was never sent for forensic examination and only the left side indicator of the Auto was found to be broken and it contained some scratches; that when the body of the deceased was brought to the hospital, it was informed to the complainant himself that the death was accidental and this fact is recorded in the general diary of the Police. It is also submitted that at the time of arrest, grounds of arrest were never communicated to the applicant, which is verified from the arrest memo enclosed with the bail application; that even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, then also, no motive has been assigned to the applicant for causing the said offence. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Considering the fact that grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant at the time of arrest; applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2025 and he has no previous criminal history, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 28.04.2026 Ujjwal