SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3163 BA1 No. 548 of 2026 Kunwarpal alias Sumit alias Kallu ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Sajjad Ahmad, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Kunwarpal alias Sumit alias Kallu, S/o Kusumpal, R/o Village Tanda Mehtouli, P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 1018 of 2025, registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, for the offence punishable under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023. 4. Heard Mr. Sajjad Ahmad, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits, for consideration of bail, that the FIR is a delayed one and no plausible explanation has been furnished in that regard, which creates doubt on the prosecution case. It is further submitted that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is drowning in water and no ante-mortem external injuries have been noticed in the post-mortem examination. It is also submitted that no missing report was lodged by the informant and, therefore, the allegation that the deceased was taken away by the accused persons appears improbable. Learned counsel further submits that the case rests solely on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the Applicant. It is also contended that co-accused Rajat has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2026 and the present Applicant stands on parity. The Applicant has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 19.10.2025. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail Application contending that there are serious allegations against the present Applicant and, therefore, he is not entitled to bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds sufficient grounds to allow the bail application. Considering the delayed FIR, the nature of evidence collected, the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, absence of specific medical indication supporting the prosecution case, and particularly the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail on the ground of parity, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the present case is fit for grant of bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 27.04.2026 Shiksha