2025:UHC:5708 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. 639 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned Amicus counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant- Shubham, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 241 of 2021, under Sections 394, 302, 414, 411, 201 & 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bhadrabad, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the FIR, the informant alleged that his 22-year old son Rohit had gone to Dehradun on 14.06.2021 for labour work. He left Dehradun to return to his village on a Bajaj motorcycle bearing registration number from Uttarakhand with cash amount of ₹10,000/-. While on the way, he was in contact with his brother Bhupender Saini around 7:30 p.m., and mentioned that he had stopped to collect some clothes. However, Rohit did not reach home, and his phone was found switched off. On 15.06.2021, the informant received a call from the police informing him that a body had been found in an open field near Kishanpur. Upon reaching the Government Hospital, the informant identified the deceased as his son. 6. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The only evidence against the applicant is a CCTV footage showing the deceased riding as a pillion with the applicant; however, when the applicant returned six hours later on foot on the said route, he was 2025:UHC:5708 seen alone in the footage. It is further contended that the mandatory provisions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act have not been complied with in regard to the admissibility of the CCTV footage, which is only basis for implication of the applicant in the alleged crime. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is in judicial custody since 19.06.2021 and out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far. Moreover, the co-accused from whom the deceased’s mobile phone and motorcycle were recovered has already been granted bail. The applicant is a permanent resident of Haridwar, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence. Hence, it is argued that the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the ground of seriousness of the allegations. However, he fairly conceded that the applicant has been in custody since 19.06.2021. 9. Having considered the submissions made by both parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 10. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant Shubham be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 03.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5708