SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3979 BA1 No. 701 of 2026 Smt. Shashi ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Smt. Shashi, W/o Sanjeev Kumar, R/o Village Gangnoli, P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 85 of 2026, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, for offences punishable under Sections 61(2) and 238 of the B.N.S., 2023. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, while pressing the bail application, submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since 17.02.2026. It is contended that, as per the prosecution case, on the pointing out of co-accused Sanjeev and Jogendra, the dead body of Brijesh was recovered from across the river. Thereafter, on the pointing out of co-accused Sanjeev, the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the crime, i.e., an axe, is also stated to have been recovered. It is further submitted that after the arrest of the Applicant, remand was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide order dated 17.02.2026. Learned counsel further contended that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. It is also contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and no incriminating article has been recovered either from the possession or on the pointing out of the Applicant. Furthermore, it is submitted that the co-accused has already been granted bail and the Applicant, being a lady with no active role assigned in the commission of the crime, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, the Applicant has been able to make out a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant 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. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 11. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 21.05.2026 Shiksha