2025:UHC:6326 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. 1270 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Naresh Yadav’ S/o Shri Varsh Pal Singh is praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 28.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 152 of 2025 P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant along with three others namely Kaushalya Devi, Dinesh Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav were implicated for the offences punishable under Section 3(5) r/w Section 80(2) of BNS, 2023. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and infact the applicant married with the deceased in the year 2019 and there was no issues from this marriage and that is the reason that the victim was depressed. He further submits that the applicant is serving in BSF in district Jhajhar of State of Assam. The other two persons Dinesh Yadav, the brother, and his wife Kamlesh Yadav has already been exonerated, however the applicant and his mother Kaushalya Devi have been chargesheeted. He also argued that due to the depression the deceased on the date of incident i.e. 26.04.2025 consumed the poison and then she was brought for medical check-up by the applicant himself to one doctor namely Dr. Nazakat Husain, who referred her to the another hospital and thereafter she was declared dead. 5. He also submits that the incident about consuming the poison was communicated to the family members of the deceased and at the time of inquest the deceased’s father Vinod Kumar Yadav was present and he was made as a witness in the inquest report. 6. Apart from this, he submits that now the 2025:UHC:6326 chargesheet has been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and is languishing in jail since 29.04.2025. 7. On the other side, Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State have not disputed this fact that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. She also submits that the viscera report is still awaited though the chargesheet has been filed. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and the applicant is serving in BSF and have no previous criminal history as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant ‘Naresh Yadav’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:6326