2026:UHC:3467 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1021 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Arvind Vashishta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the complainant. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./ Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 238(A), 3(5) and 309(4) of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant was informed by the police at about 03: 38 p.m. on 31.01.2025 that the dead body of his son was found lying near a canal, pursuant to which the present First Information Report came to be lodged. During the course of investigation, the present applicant along with two other co-accused persons was implicated and, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against them. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in judicial custody since 12.02.2025. It is argued that there is no eyewitness account of the alleged occurrence and the prosecution case rests entirely upon circumstantial 2026:UHC:3467 evidence. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any cogent motive for the alleged murder. Learned counsel also questioned the evidentiary value and relevancy of the alleged recovery of personal belongings of the deceased from the possession of the applicant prior to recording of the alleged confessional statement. It is contended that the applicant is a young person aged about 34 years, having deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submit that, during investigation, the complicity of the applicant surfaced on the basis of CCTV footage as well as the statement of the last-seen witness, namely, Shaukin, whose statement duly corroborates the CCTV evidence collected by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that the personal belongings of the deceased, including his shoes, wrist watch and motorcycle, were recovered from the possession of the applicant, thereby providing a strong incriminating circumstance against him. Learned counsel further submit that the chain of circumstances collected during investigation prima facie points towards the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence and the charge-sheet has already been filed on the basis of sufficient material collected against him. It is also contended that considering the gravity and heinous nature of the offence, coupled with the 2026:UHC:3467 severity of punishment prescribed, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. They further apprehend that in the event the applicant is enlarged on bail, there exists every likelihood of his influencing prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based upon a chain of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, last-seen evidence and recovery of the personal belongings of the deceased from the possession of the applicant. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with prosecution evidence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 07.05.2026 Arpan