2025:UHC:6405 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. 806 of 2025 BA1 No. 815 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shailabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. These two bail applications have been moved by the applicant ‘Kundan Singh Bisht @ Kannu’ and ‘Bhopal Singh Bisht @ Ghannu’ both are sons of Late Shri Khilaf Singh praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 09.10.2023 bearing FIR No. 448 of 2023 P.S. Ramnagar, District Nainital, which was lodged against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4. In the contents of the FIR it reveals that the complainant suspects two persons namely Sodi Garhwali and Trilok Arya. On completion of the investigation in this FIR the chargesheet was filed against both the applicants on 01.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the applicants are the real brothers and are not named in the FIR, however, on completion of the investigation in this particular case the chargesheet was filed on 01.01.2024, however, during investigation both the applicants, who are the real brothers, were arrested on 10.10.2023 and since then they are in jail. He submits that this is a case of sudden provocation and the deceased as per the prosecution was pushed down by the applicant Kundan Singh due to which he fell down from the roof and died. He submits there is no any intention and motive and infact there was a dispute in between the families of the applicants and the deceased with regard to the cutting of trees and at the time of incident the deceased was abusing hte mother of the applicant. 6. He also argued that both the applicants, who are the real brothers, have no previous criminal history and since the chargesheet has already filed 2025:UHC:6405 on 01.01.2024 the trial has been commenced and all the star witnesses have been examined, therefore there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicants and since both the applicants are languishing in jail since 10.10.2023, therefore, be enlarged on bail. He also argued that in the FIR the complainant himself suspect two persons namely Sodi Garhwali and Trilok Arya but during entire investigation both these two persons were never been interrogated. 7. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General seriously oppose this bail application by submitting that by collecting all credible evidences the chargesheet has been filed and the trial is at a concluding stage, therefore the applicants should not be enlarged on bail. Apart from this, Mr. Sandhu argues that one of the person namely Sodi Garhwali against whom the complainant suspect was not interrogated because of the reason that Sodi Garhwali is the real brother of both the applicants. However, he has not disputed that the chargesheet has already been filed on 01.01.2024 and both the applicants are languishing in jail since 10.10.2024 and have no previous criminal antecedents and since the trial is at a concluding stage, therefore, at this juncture there is no need of custodial interrogation. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that there is no need of custodial interrogation of both the applicants and both the applicants are languishing in jail since 10.10.2023 and have no criminal history and furthermore the trial has been commenced and is at a concluding stage, this court is of the view that both the applicants deserve for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case both the bail applications are allowed. 10. Let both the applicants namely ‘Kundan Singh Bisht @ Kannu’ and ‘Bhopal Singh Bisht @ Ghannu’ be released on bail on furnishing their personal bonds and two sureties of the like amount by each of them to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 22.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:6405