High Court · 2025
Case Details
1. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharm a, A.G.A. for t he St at e. 3. regular bail t o FI R dat ed 30.09.2021 bearing FI R/ Case Crim e No. 340 of 2021 at P.S. Banbhoolpura, Dist rict Haldwani which was lodged against unknown person for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 365 I PC. The fact s of t he case are t hat a 4. m issing t he com plainant wit h regard t o m issing of her daught er aged about 15 years, who left house at about 5: 00 pm t he evening of 29.04.2021. This FI R was regist ered as Case Crim e No. 0340 of 2021 for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 365 I PC. Thereaft er, aft er t he aforesaid FI R, during lodging of invest igat ion, t he I .O. collect ed t he CCTV foot ages, inst alled in t he house of Mohd. Naeem Ansari from which it was revealed t hat on 29.09.2021, t he daught er of t he com plainant was seen wit h t he co- accused Jeeshan. Aft er arrest of Jeeshan t he present applicant was nam e of disclosed and on t he invest igat ing agency cam e t o know t hat t he com plainant subj ect ed t o gang rape and t hereaft er killed by t he present applicant and co- accused Jeeshan. Consequent ly, aft er com plet ion of invest igat ion, charge sheet t he offences punishable under Sect ions 201, 302/ 34, 363, 376 int errogat ion daught er t he ( A) , 376( 3) , 376( DA) ( n) , 120 B, 506 I PC read wit h Sect ion 5( J) ( iv) / 6 of t he POCSO Act , in which t he cognizance was t aken by t he Trial Court on 03.12.2021. The present applicant and ot her co- accused Jeeshan bot h have been charge sheet ed. As per t he charge sheet , t here are as m any as 24 prosecut ion wit nesses and one of t he prosecut ion wit ness, as per t he charge sheet , is Shahrukh, S/ o Mohd. Hanif. 5. Learned counsel for t he applicant argued t hat t he applicant is innocent and has been falsely im plicat ed only on t he basis of disclosure of his nam e by co- accused Jeeshan. Apart from t his, he subm it s t hat DNA of t he deceased also does not m at ch wit h t he undergarm ent s of t he present applicant . He also subm it s t hat as per t he charge sheet Shahrukh t he t he st ar wit ness who was wit ness of last seen evidence but an applicat ion was m oved for discharging t he said prosecut ion wit ness by t he prosecut ion which was allowed. Learned counsel for t he applicant 6. subm it s agency deliberat ely does not want t o exam ine t he st ar wit ness. Apart from t his, he subm it s t hat charge sheet has already is no need of t here cust odial int errogat ion and up t ill dat e 9 wit nesses have been exam ined. 7. On t he ot her side, Mr. Sandeep Sharm a, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e argued t hat aft er collect ing all credible evidences including t he CCTV foot ages t he and CCTV com plainant in t he pen- drive, t he charge sheet was filed. He subm it s t hat t here is last seen evidence against t he present applicant wit h t he present applicant was in love wit h t he deceased. He subm it s t hat t he alleged incident is a very grievous offence wherein first ly t he deceased was raped foot ages provided by t he deceased and invest igat ing filed and t hat t his, Apart and t hereaft er m urdered. 8. learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat t he t rial is going on and alm ost 9 wit nesses have been exam ined t herefore in such a sit uat ion if t he applicant is enlarged on bail t here t hat he m ay m ay be a possibilit y influence t he rem aining wit nesses. Aft er hearing t he argum ent s of t he 9. t he part ies and learned counsel furt her t he seriousness of t he offence part icularly t he fact t hat charge sheet has been filed and alm ost 9 wit ness have been exam ined, t his Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is rej ect ed. int o considerat ion t aking ( Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J.) 2 9 .0 4 .2 0 2 5 Parul
1. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for t he applicant . 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharm a, A.G.A. for t he St at e. 3. regular bail t o FI R dat ed 30.09.2021 bearing FI R/ Case Crim e No. 340 of 2021 at P.S. Banbhoolpura, Dist rict Haldwani which was lodged against unknown person for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 365 I PC. The fact s of t he case are t hat a 4. m issing t he com plainant wit h regard t o m issing of her daught er aged about 15 years, who left house at about 5: 00 pm t he evening of 29.04.2021. This FI R was regist ered as Case Crim e No. 0340 of 2021 for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 365 I PC. Thereaft er, aft er t he aforesaid FI R, during lodging of invest igat ion, t he I .O. collect ed t he CCTV foot ages, inst alled in t he house of Mohd. Naeem Ansari from which it was revealed t hat on 29.09.2021, t he daught er of t he com plainant was seen wit h t he co- accused Jeeshan. Aft er arrest of Jeeshan t he present applicant was nam e of disclosed and on t he invest igat ing agency cam e t o know t hat t he com plainant subj ect ed t o gang rape and t hereaft er killed by t he present applicant and co- accused Jeeshan. Consequent ly, aft er com plet ion of invest igat ion, charge sheet t he offences punishable under Sect ions 201, 302/ 34, 363, 376 int errogat ion daught er t he ( A) , 376( 3) , 376( DA) ( n) , 120 B, 506 I PC read wit h Sect ion 5( J) ( iv) / 6 of t he POCSO Act , in which t he cognizance was t aken by t he Trial Court on 03.12.2021. The present applicant and ot her co- accused Jeeshan bot h have been charge sheet ed. As per t he charge sheet , t here are as m any as 24 prosecut ion wit nesses and one of t he prosecut ion wit ness, as per t he charge sheet , is Shahrukh, S/ o Mohd. Hanif. 5. Learned counsel for t he applicant argued t hat t he applicant is innocent and has been falsely im plicat ed only on t he basis of disclosure of his nam e by co- accused Jeeshan. Apart from t his, he subm it s t hat DNA of t he deceased also does not m at ch wit h t he undergarm ent s of t he present applicant . He also subm it s t hat as per t he charge sheet Shahrukh t he t he st ar wit ness who was wit ness of last seen evidence but an applicat ion was m oved for discharging t he said prosecut ion wit ness by t he prosecut ion which was allowed. Learned counsel for t he applicant 6. subm it s agency deliberat ely does not want t o exam ine t he st ar wit ness. Apart from t his, he subm it s t hat charge sheet has already is no need of t here cust odial int errogat ion and up t ill dat e 9 wit nesses have been exam ined. 7. On t he ot her side, Mr. Sandeep Sharm a, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e argued t hat aft er collect ing all credible evidences including t he CCTV foot ages t he and CCTV com plainant in t he pen- drive, t he charge sheet was filed. He subm it s t hat t here is last seen evidence against t he present applicant wit h t he present applicant was in love wit h t he deceased. He subm it s t hat t he alleged incident is a very grievous offence wherein first ly t he deceased was raped foot ages provided by t he deceased and invest igat ing filed and t hat t his, Apart and t hereaft er m urdered. 8. learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat t he t rial is going on and alm ost 9 wit nesses have been exam ined t herefore in such a sit uat ion if t he applicant is enlarged on bail t here t hat he m ay m ay be a possibilit y influence t he rem aining wit nesses. Aft er hearing t he argum ent s of t he 9. t he part ies and learned counsel furt her t he seriousness of t he offence part icularly t he fact t hat charge sheet has been filed and alm ost 9 wit ness have been exam ined, t his Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is rej ect ed. int o considerat ion t aking ( Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J.) 2 9 .0 4 .2 0 2 5 Parul