2026:UHC:3339 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1462/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant through Video Conferencing. 2. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The first bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 355 of 2024, registered under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the B.N.S. at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. 4. As per the prosecution case, the First Information Report dated 06.11.2024 was lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging that the applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, was present in the house along with the deceased at the relevant time. It is further alleged that their two minor children had gone to school and upon their return, when they opened the door, they found the deceased lying dead inside the house. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, there is an unexplained delay of about two days in lodging the F.I.R.; that, the applicant has not committed the alleged offence and that the prosecution case is not supported by any reliable or cogent evidence. It is also argued that the 2026:UHC:3339 charge-sheet has been filed without awaiting the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), thereby rendering the prosecution case doubtful. 6. Learned counsel would further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and is not specifically named with any overt act in the F.I.R. It is also contended that the court below has rejected the bail application vide order dated 07.07.2025 without properly appreciating the material on record; that, the post-mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death has been shown as shock and haemorrhage due to rupture of internal organs along with ante- mortem injuries, which does not conclusively establish the involvement of the applicant, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application, submitting that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature. It is submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded and they have supported the prosecution case. It is further pointed out that the minor daughter of the deceased, aged about 15 years, in her statement, has stated that the applicant used to physically assault the deceased regularly and that the frequency and intensity of such assaults had increased in the last four months prior to the incident. 8. Learned State counsel further submits that the recovered articles have been sent to the F.S.L. and the reports are awaited. It is contended that the Investigating Officer, on the basis of oral 2026:UHC:3339 and documentary evidence collected during investigation, has found sufficient and credible material against the applicant and has accordingly submitted the charge-sheet, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. The statements of material witnesses, particularly that of the minor daughter, prima facie indicate a history of domestic violence. The death of the deceased having occurred within the confines of the matrimonial home, where only the applicant and the deceased were present, raises a strong prima facie circumstance against the applicant. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.05.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1 449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329 b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852 c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8d d004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.05 10:21:48 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3339