2025:UHC:7089 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. 1388 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shubham Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Saajiya’ D/o Guddu is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 11.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 37 of 2025 registered at P.S. Vanbhoolpura, District Nainital, wherein, the present applicant and one Khushbu both real sisters were implicated for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that the alleged incident was happened on 03.06.2024 but the FIR was lodged almost after eight months i.e. on 11.02.2025 by the mother of the deceased. 5. Apart from this, he submits that infact the applicant married with the deceased and the nikahnama is also placed on record. He further submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2025 and the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. He submits that the lodging of the FIR that too after eight months of the incident reveals that without any substance and material the FIR has been lodged. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also apprise to this court that the other co-accused Khushbu, sister of the applicant, is already enlarged on bail by this court on 21.07.2025. 7. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. have not disputed this fact that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned 2025:UHC:7089 counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that there is delay of eight months in lodging the FIR and the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant and furthermore the other co-accused is already enlarged on bail, 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 ‘Saajiya’ be released on bail on furnishing her personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 12.08.2025 PR 2025:UHC:7089