2026:UHC:593 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/109/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant–Rajesh Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 329 of 2024 (Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2024), registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 504, 506, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mangalore, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging that on 23.04.2024, the accused persons, along with others, dragged the complainant’s son into a field and assaulted him with lathi, danda and sharp- edged weapons. It is further alleged that a country-made pistol was also used, as a result of which the complainant’s son sustained serious injuries and subsequently succumbed to them. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that during investigation, the applicant was arrested and, on his alleged pointing out, the wooden stripe were shown to have been recovered; that, a perusal of the post-mortem report reveals that the cause of death was not due to injuries caused by blunt weapons, but was attributed to a firearm injury. 6. It is also submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 01.05.2024, has no previous criminal 2026:UHC:593 history, and that his bail application was earlier rejected by the court below vide order dated 26.11.2024; that, the co-accused has already been granted bail with similar role has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2026. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and there is no likelihood of his absconding. It is further submitted that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time as only two prosecution witnesses have been examined as yet; therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application; however, he fairly admits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.05.2024 and that his earlier bail application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 26.11.2024; that, the co- accused has already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.01.2026. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 10. 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. (Alok Mahra, J.) Vacation Judge 20.01.2026 Mamta