SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3617 BA1 No. 601 of 2026 Isha Chauhan ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait han i, J. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Isha Chauhan, D/o Late Shri Sanjay Chauhan, R/o Baba Ki Vaani (Isha Trust), Near Balaji Dham, Village Gajivali, Shyampur, P.S. Shyampur, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 23 of 2026, registered at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar, for offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023. 4. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the initial FIR, the main allegations were made only against co- accused Deepak Kumar, who was allegedly seen fleeing from the spot carrying a blood-stained stone. The name of the present Applicant was neither mentioned in the FIR nor was there any allegation regarding her presence or involvement in the alleged offence at the time of the incident. It is further submitted that the Applicant has been implicated subsequently only on the basis of the custodial statement of co-accused Deepak Kumar. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that there are no direct allegations against the Applicant and she is not a beneficiary in the alleged transaction. It is also submitted that the allegations regarding dispute of Rs.13–14 lakhs are self-contradictory, as the injured himself had earlier lodged a complaint against co-accused Deepak Kumar regarding theft of Rs.5,50,000/-, wherein the present Applicant was a witness for the injured. This circumstance, according to the learned counsel for the Applicant, clearly shows that the Applicant had no motive to cause harm to the injured, with whom she was associated in charitable activities. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and submitted that there was monetary dispute involving an amount of Rs.13–14 lakhs and, therefore, the Applicant does not deserve bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application deserves to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant—Isha Chauhan be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 10. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 12.05.2026 Shiksha