2026:UHC:3159 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.2037 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mrs. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.0043 of 2016, under Section 302, 201 & 364 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant on 20.03.2015 stating that his wife, Smt. Geetika Singh, his daughter Ishika, his son Aru, and his mother-in- law, Smt. Mithlesh Kumari, had left their residence on 24.01.2015 for Mata Vaishno Devi Temple but did not return thereafter. It was further averred that approximately five days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., his mother-in-law had informed him that they were at Shantikunj, Haridwar; however, since then, no contact could be established with them. 4. During the course of investigation, the dead body of Smt. Geetika Singh was recovered and, as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was found to be shock and haemorrhage, indicating a homicidal nature of death. The other missing persons, namely the daughter, son and mother-in-law, could not be traced despite efforts made during investigation. It further transpires that 2026:UHC:3159 the applicant remained absconding for a considerable period and was eventually apprehended from Chandigarh on 14.01.2017. Upon completion of investigation, sufficient material was found against the applicant and a charge sheet came to be filed against him for offences punishable under the relevant provisions of law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, has no criminal antecedents, and is in judicial custody since 14.01.2017. It is further contended that there is no independent eye witness of the alleged incident. It has also been submitted that the applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail, if granted. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, contending that the offence alleged is heinous in nature. It is further submitted that as many as eight prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and the evidence collected during trial prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. 7. The F.I.R. pertains to a grave incident involving the disappearance of four family members, out of whom the dead body of Smt. Geetika Singh was recovered with post-mortem findings indicating death due to shock and haemorrhage, suggestive of homicidal violence. The applicant remained absconding for a considerable period and was apprehended only on 14.01.2017, which reflects conduct adverse to the claim of innocence. The offence alleged is 2026:UHC:3159 heinous in nature and impacts societal conscience. Further, substantial evidence has already been collected and eight prosecution witnesses have been examined, which prima facie supports the prosecution case. At this stage, when the trial is substantially progressed, granting bail may prejudice the prosecution and risk interference with the course of justice. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Alok Mahra, J.) 27.04.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.27 18:00:14 +05'30'