BA1/1298/2024 of ROHIT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1298 of 2024

Rohit

State of Uttarakhand

…Applicant

Versus

…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant :

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, moved on behalf of the applicant–Rohit, aged about 25 years, son of Dharam Singh, resident of Village Langdabhoj, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, who is in judicial custody since 07.02.2024 in connection with FIR No. 34 of 2024, registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Heard Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

3. The case arises out of an FIR lodged on 04.02.2024 by one Dharmendra Singh, who is the brother of the deceased Jaspal Singh @ Vishal. The informant has stated that the deceased was in DJ

2025:UHC:2666

business partnership with the applicant and one Mohit for the past two years and that they were residing together. On 03.02.2024, the informant allegedly received call from co-accused Mohit, who informed him about the presence of body lying on the highway. The informant approached the local police and identified the body from photograph shown to him. It was alleged that the applicant and co-accused Mohit murdered the informant’s brother and disposed of the body.

4. During the investigation, the prosecution claims that on the night of 02.02.2024, following dispute regarding the sharing of business proceeds, the applicant struck the deceased with wooden stick on the head and leg, resulting in fatal injuries. The body was allegedly transported on motorcycle with the assistance of co-accused Mohit and dumped on the Rudrapur–Kashipur Highway.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged assault. It is further contended that the alleged recovery of the stick and shoes of the deceased at the instance of the applicant is unsupported by disclosure memo and is not corroborated by any forensic analysis. The counsel submits that there is no motive established for the applicant to have committed the crime, particularly since the deceased was his business partner. It is also pointed out that co-accused Mohit has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 12.04.2024 and that the applicant does not have any prior criminal record.

6. The State opposes the bail application and relies on statements of three witnesses—Manish Kumar, Sumit Singh, and Mohan Singh—recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who allegedly saw the applicant and the deceased arguing on the night of the incident. The State further relies on the post-mortem report which attributes the cause of death to subdural hematoma leading to coma, consistent with assault by blunt object such as stick.

7. On consideration of the materials placed on record, it is evident that the prosecution case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct eyewitness account of the alleged assault. The recovery of the alleged weapon (stick) and the shoes of the deceased is not accompanied by disclosure memo or forensic examination linking the articles to the crime. The evidentiary value of the recovery, therefore, is prima facie weak at this stage.

8. The applicant has been in custody since 07.02.2024. The charge sheet has already been filed on 05.05.2024 and no further custodial interrogation is required. The trial is yet to begin and is likely to take time.

9. The co-accused Mohit, though charged only under Section 201 IPC, has been granted bail. While the role of the present applicant may appear more serious, the principle of parity is not irrelevant, especially where the evidence against both accused persons originates from the same chain of events.

2025:UHC:2666

10. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is permanent resident of the district and is stated to have strong familial and social ties. The apprehension of flight or influencing witnesses can be addressed through appropriate conditions.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, reiterated that pre-trial detention should not become form of punishment. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, it was held that the power to arrest and detain must be exercised cautiously and not as matter of routine.

12. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, it was held that the grant of bail is not to be denied merely on the basis of the gravity of the offence. Liberty is constitutional value and must not be denied unless it is shown that the accused is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence.

13. In the present case, taking into account the nature of evidence, the fact that the investigation is complete, the period of custody undergone, absence of criminal antecedents, and the settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant–Rohit be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 34 of 2024, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the

following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any prosecution witness in any manner.

(ii) The applicant shall appear on all dates fixed by the Trial Court and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

(iii) In case of breach of any condition, the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.

___________________

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt: 02.04.2025 SB

SHIKSHA BINJOLADigitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.09 11:10:09 +05'30'