SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r epor t s, or ders 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 2026:UHC:3685 BA 1 st No.1 9 3 of 2 0 2 6 Suraj ……Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Mr. Mohd Safdar, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned DAG, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case arises from Bail Application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail for the Applicant - Suraj, who has been accused in Case Crime No.134 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. 4. As per the prosecution story, as per the FIR, is that on the date of the incident, in the late hours 1-2:30 AM, the husband of the Complainant was shot dead by unknown person/persons, and after hearing the gun shots, the son of the deceased came out and look for the assailant but could not see or find anyone. Despite having heard the gun shot, the family members did not apprehend the loss of their father/husband and upon awakening in the next day at 4:30 AM, when the Complainant went to awake her husband/deceased, and only after there was no movement found and when she uncovered the sheet with which he was wrapped around, then only she witnesses that her husband/deceased was soaked in blood and thereafter a Police complaint in this regard was lodged. 5. Learned counsel representing the Applicant submits for the consideration of the bail that firstly the Applicant is not named in the FIR and matter is totally based on the circumstantial evidence and as per the statement of the witnesses, the Applicant cannot be linked in any manner which may found the chain of the circumstantial evidence so as to say a last seen evidence or otherwise. It is only on his allegedly confessional statements, he was falsely implicated in the present matter, and moreover only on the basis of the confessional statements that is uncorroborated, the Applicant cannot be held liable in the present crime. Further it is said that the star witness and other witnesses do not support the prosecution story or give any evidence against the Applicant, and on this ground the Applicant may be released on bail. 6. The bail application of the Applicant has been vehemently opposed by the learned State Counsel with the strong contention that the Applicant has confessed his crime before the Police and the bail application is liable to be rejected. 7. Without going into the merits and considering the submissions so made before this Court, I find it a fit case for bail. 8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the Applicant - Suraj, who has been accused in Case Crime No.134 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1) of BNS, 2023 and under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The Applicant shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty granted to him. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) 14.05.2026 Nitesh/