SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3480 BA1 No. 413 of 2026 Maan Singh alias Ram Singh ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait han i, J. Ms. Sudha Tamta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Maan Singh alias Ram Singh, S/o Shri Ram Singh, R/o Village Nagal Jwalapur Dudhli, Doiwala, District Dehradun. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 164 of 2019, registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, for offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 4. Heard Ms. Sudha Tamta, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and has not committed the offences alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the Applicant are false, baseless, and highly exaggerated. Learned counsel further submits that the present case is primarily based upon circumstantial evidence and that the alleged chain of circumstances is neither complete nor conclusively established against the Applicant. It is also submitted that the Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and has been languishing in jail since 30.07.2019. On these grounds, prayer has been made to enlarge the Applicant on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the present Applicant is named in the FIR pertaining to the murder of four innocent persons, namely his wife and three minor children. It is further submitted that the Applicant has committed a very serious offence and, therefore, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned State Counsel further submits that if the Applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may misuse the liberty and abscond. 7. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the Applicant are grave in nature. The offence alleged against the Applicant pertains to the murder of four family members, including three minor children, which prima facie reflects extreme brutality. At this stage, this Court does not find any mitigating circumstance warranting the exercise of discretion in favour of the Applicant. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment prescribed, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail at this stage. Furthermore, the possibility of the Applicant influencing witnesses or absconding cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, no case for grant of bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is rejected. 10. However, it is clarified that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not influence the trial on merits. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 07.05.2026 Shiksha