BA1/2295/2024 of ANJALI SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2295 of 2024

Anjali Sharma

…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand …Respondent

With

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2296 of 2024

Shivam Saxena

State of Uttarakhand

…Applicant

Versus

…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant :

Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel.

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

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, have been filed by Anjali Sharma and Shivam Saxena, seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 291 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 302, 394, 411, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both Applicants have been in judicial custody since 02.07.2024. 2. The FIR was lodged on 02.07.2024 by the

son of the deceased. He alleged that while he was in Jaipur and his father was away in Noida, his mother died under suspicious circumstances at their home in Kichha on 29.06.2024. Following her cremation, the family noticed the disappearance of jewellery. Upon reviewing nearby CCTV footage, the complainant claims to have identified Anjali Sharma — family acquaintance — and an unidentified individual later alleged to be Shivam Saxena, loitering near the house around the time of the incident.

3. Based on the footage and subsequent investigation, the Applicants were arrested, and charges were framed under Sections 302, 394, 411, and 34 IPC. The cause of death, as per post-mortem, was asphyxia due to smothering. Certain ornaments and household object, allegedly used in the offence, were recovered on disclosure by the Applicants.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than three days, which, in cases of homicide, casts serious doubt on its spontaneity and raises concerns of afterthought or manipulation.

6. It is contended that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The CCTV footage only shows the Applicants in the general vicinity and not entering the house or engaging in any incriminating act. There is no eyewitness, no direct attribution, and no forensic link tying the Applicants to the act of murder.

7. As for the recoveries, it is argued that the jewellery allegedly seized is described generically, with no hallmark certification, purchase invoices, or sworn identification from family members to establish ownership or linkage to the deceased. The alleged murder weapon household object has neither been identified by any independent witness nor been forensically matched with any injury mark or smothering mechanism.

8. It is also submitted that the Applicants have no criminal antecedents, have cooperated during investigation, and that their custodial presence is not required further, especially as the charge sheet stands filed and trial is yet to begin.

9. Learned A.G.A. opposes the bail, submitting that both Applicants are clearly named in the FIR, were seen near the house shortly before the incident, and have failed to provide any credible explanation for their presence.

10. It is asserted that the post-mortem report confirms death due to smothering, ruling out natural causes. The presence of the Applicants, followed by the death and disappearance of valuables, establishes strong circumstantial chain. Recoveries of ornaments and the alleged weapon, made on disclosure by the applicants further point to their complicity.

11. The State also cites the financial motive, particularly in the case of Anjali Sharma, who was allegedly indebted due to house construction. It is submitted that custodial bail at this stage would jeopardize the integrity of the trial, which involves

crime committed inside private home and likely in furtherance of pre-planned conspiracy.

12. This Court notes that the present case is entirely circumstantial, with no eyewitness account, no direct forensic linkage, and no scientific examination establishing that the recovered article could cause smothering. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court mandated that the chain of circumstances in murder case must be complete and should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other hypothesis.

13. The CCTV footage only shows the Applicants near the residence. Their mere presence in proximity, absent conduct or entry, is insufficient to complete the chain unless supported by additional links. The Court also notes that the State has not produced material to establish prior familiarity or contact between the Applicants shortly before the occurrence or proof of last-seen circumstance.

14. The alleged recovery of jewellery remains problematic. The absence of proper inventory, identification memo, or corroboration by family members weakens its evidentiary value. The law under Navaneethakrishnan v. State, (2018) 16 SCC 161, reiterates that recovery, to be credible, must be substantiated by lawful seizure, ownership proof, and forensic consistency.

15. The alleged murder weapon is an ordinary household item-a doormat. No medical expert has opined that it was used in the offence. Further, the

disclosures made by the Applicants under Section 180 of the BNSS (akin to Section 27 of the Evidence Act) do not constitute substantive evidence unless corroborated by recovery of incriminating material linked to the crime. In the absence of forensic authentication, the Court finds no material linking the weapon to the asphyxia death.

16. The charge sheet has been submitted. The Applicants have no criminal history, and there is no possibility of absconding, tampering, or threat. The trial is yet to commence. Given the above, and bearing in mind the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court finds that continued incarceration at this stage is not warranted.

ORDER

Let the Applicants, Anjali Sharma and Shivam Saxena, be released on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence, shall not attempt to influence any witness, and shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed. In case of breach of any of these conditions, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

The bail application is allowed.

___________________

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt: 16.04.2025 SBSHIKSHA 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: 2025.04.25 15:58:00 +05'30'