HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Mr. Prabhakar Narayan, learned counsel for the

praying for regular bail in reference to FIR dated 18.10.2024 bearing FIR No. 0337 of 2024, Police Station – Kankhal, District – Haridwar wherein the present applicant along with Yogi Ram Gopal Nath @ Ram Gopal Singh, Saurav, Lalit and Pradeep were implicated for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 201, 302 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that though the applicant is named in the FIR but he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is no direct evidence against the present applicant and only on the basis of presumption, the applicant has been charge sheeted. He further submits that presumption is based upon the withdrawal of some amount from the account of deceased Mahant and recovery of certain documents like WILL, cheque book and FDs. He further submits that initially, in this case, a missing report was lodged but in the chik FIR penal provision of Section 302 IPC has been mentioned. He further submits that when the chik FIR was registered there was no evidence that the deceased was murdered, therefore, mentioning of penal provision of Section 302 1 IPC, is great lapse on the part of police official, who registered the chick FIR.

3. Apart from this, he submits that present applicant arrested on

19.10.2024 and charge sheet has already been filed and trial has been commenced, therefore, at this juncture, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, and as such, applicant be released on bail.

4. He further submits that though the charge sheet has been filed but still part pending investigation is still going on against two accused persons Saurav and Pradeep, who according to the prosecution are still absconding, therefore, the charge sheet as filed is, in fact, is not a charge sheet. He further submits that co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi and Ram Gopal Singh have already been enlarged on bail.

6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Certain queries were made on the previous date from the prosecution that if there was missing report, then how the chik FIR was registered for the penal provision of Section 302 IPC. In order to examine this query, this Court called the earlier IO and present IO to appear in person before this Court and they appeared and apprised to this Court, that when they received a missing report they immediately rushed to the Ashram where other co-accused Ram Gopal Singh disclosed the entire episode and based on that, the chick FIR was registered for the penal provision of Section 302 IPC. They also apprised to this Court the person, who disclosed about the entire episode, is also charge sheeted.

7. Apart from this, learned State Counsel submits that though in this particular case dead body was not recovered but there are strong circumstantial evidence against the present applicant and other co–accused i.e. recovery of cheque book, FDs and WILL, in which the present applicant is the beneficiary. He further submits 2 that in fact, present applicant as well as other co – accused on their confessional statement disclosed that Mahant was murdered on

01.06.2024 and thereafter, from the account of Mahant four times amount was withdrawn. First withdrawal of Rs. 1,85,000/- was made on 03.06.2024, second withdrawal of Rs. 1,70,000/- was made on 20.06.2024, third withdrawal of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made on

02.07.2024 and last withdrawal of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made on

05.07.2024.

8. State Counsel further submits that amount was withdrawn by co-accused Saurav and present applicant was sitting in the Bank during bank transaction. He further submits that evidence with regard to the withdrawal of the amount from the account of Mahant was collected from the CCTV footage of the bank and it is very clear that both Saurav.

9. Apart from this, the State Counsel submits that in the subsequently three bank transactions, present applicant was not present and present applicant was present only in on transaction made on 03.06.2024. He further submits that there some money withdrawal from the ATM in Meerut from account of the deceased Mahant and withdrawal was made from 08.07.2024 to 14.07.2024 and during this period total amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- was withdrawn from the bank through ATM. It is also argued that deceased Mahant was having two mobile phones and locations of both the mobiles were found near Ashram where incident took place. One mobile was in operation and second one was destroyed and as per the CDR report, the mobile which was recovered from the possession of the present applicant there was regular conversation was till 30.05.2024 one day prior to the incident since on the next date, Mahant was murdered. He further submits that during investigation, it was found that second mobile was broken by the present applicant and handed over to one Omkar, resident of Haryana, who threw it in Nala and the same could not be traced out. He further submits that statement of Omkar was also recorded 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and finally, the State Counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that after collecting all credible evidence, charge sheet has been filed and there was strong motive and intention for the applicant to commit the crime, since he is the prime accused, and in the WILL he is the beneficiary, therefore, the applicant does not deserve for bail.

10. Learned State Counsel also further submits that so far as co- accused Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi is concerned, his role was entirely different since he was involved for preparing the documents and hiring the Advocate for drafting the WILL, which was recovered from possession of the present applicant and so far as role of Ram Gopal Singh who was also granted bail is concerned, his role is limited one but present applicant have played active role in committing the crime.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that offence appears to be serious in nature and after collecting the credible evidence, charge sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that applicant does not deserve for bail. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.12.2025 SKS 4