2026:UHC:3628 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 / 2 1 9 6 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini proxy counsel for Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present bail application has been filed seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 248 of 2024, registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging therein that his daughter (since deceased), who was married to the applicant in the year 2018, died on the night of 17.05.2024 and that the applicant along with his family members had forcibly administered poison to her, resulting in her death. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, initially the F.I.R. was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C.; however, during the course of investigation, the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. was converted into an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and thereafter charge-sheet has been submitted only 2026:UHC:3628 under Section 306 I.P.C. against the present applicant. 7. He would further submit that neither any cruelty nor harassment was ever caused to the deceased by the applicant and no demand of dowry or any other article was ever made by him, as alleged by the prosecution; that, out of the wedlock of the applicant and the deceased, two minor sons were born; that, from the date of marriage in the year 2018 till the date of the alleged incident on 17.05.2024, no complaint or F.I.R. was ever lodged either by the deceased or by any of her parental family members alleging harassment or cruelty against the applicant or his family members. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant has been implicated only on the basis of vague and fictitious allegations made by the prosecution witnesses; that, as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, no definite cause of death could be ascertained and the viscera was preserved for chemical examination; that, in the chemical examination report, Aluminium Phosphide poison was detected. 9. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is an agriculturist residing in a village and Aluminium Phosphide is commonly used as a fumigant for preservation of food grains, therefore, mere detection of the said substance cannot by itself implicate the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence; that, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any specific overt act or direct allegation of instigation against the applicant so as to constitute the offence under Section 306 2026:UHC:3628 I.P.C. 10. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2025; that he has no previous criminal history; that, the investigation has already been completed and charge- sheet has been filed; and that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence; that, the trial is likely to take considerable time in its conclusion and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application; however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 10.04.2025 and has no previous criminal antecedents. 12. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, the nature of accusations, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant, Nitin, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 12.05.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e 584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb d642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1 91648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.13 18:41:52 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3628