High Court · 2025

Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Applicant – Mohit Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 70 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 103, 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.), registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun has sought his release on bail. learned counsel 4. Heard parties and perused the record.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that initially, a missing report was lodged by the nephew of the deceased, stating that his uncle (Chacha), aged about 68 years, who was residing alone in a rented accommodation at Raipur, Dehradun, had gone missing on 04.02.2025. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was Ambehta River, situated in the State of Uttar further investigation, and on the basis of material collected during inquiry, the said missing report was converted into a formal F.I.R. on 07.03.2025, and the present applicant was arrested on 30.03.2025. recovered Pradesh. Upon

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has no previous criminal incriminating that no antecedents; material was recovered from the spot linking the applicant to the commission of the alleged offence; and that there is no cogent evidence to suggest that the applicant in his deceased or was disappearance or death. It is further incident allegedly argued District occurred Saharanpur, whereas the F.I.R. has been registered at Dehradun, rendering the same unsustainable in the eyes of law for want of territorial jurisdiction. accompanied Deoband, involved either

7. Learned counsel further contends that the alleged discovery under Section 27 of the applicant was inadmissible, as arrested prior to the purported discovery being made, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. Indian Evidence Act submits

8. Per contra, Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State the bail would vehemently oppose application. He applicant was arrested on 30.03.2025, investigation, a sum of and during ₹3,00,000/-, a mobile phone, and the Aadhar card of the deceased were recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that from the co-accused, who happens to be the applicant’s maternal uncle, certain Fixed Deposit (F.D.Rs.) belonging to the deceased were also allegedly recovered. inserted the SIM card of the deceased into his own mobile phone, created a UPI ID, and transferred approximately ₹10.50 applicant Receipts The lakhs into his own bank account. submitted

9. He would further submit that the applicant encashed a pre-signed cheque of ₹50,000/- in the name of his wife and another cheque of ₹1,70,000/- in the name of his father. Even prior to the alleged abduction of the deceased, the applicant had deposited a cheque of ₹2,00,000/- into his own account. It is the police further recovered the dead body of the deceased from the banks of the Ambehta Canal, and on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, the missing report was converted into the present F.I.R.; that, the prosecution case rests upon stands corroborated by medical evidence, the the accused, confession memo of statements of material witnesses, the recovery memo, and the post-mortem report, which discloses that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. evidence, which the argument of

10. Learned State counsel would further submit applicant that the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is inadmissible as he was already under arrest, has no merit. It is well settled that even if an accused is in custody, any voluntary statement made by him leading to the discovery of a new fact related to the offence is admissible in evidence. In this case, the recovery was made on the basis of the applicant’s own disclosure while in is directly police custody, and connected with the alleged offence. The evidentiary value of such recovery can be decided only during the trial. It is further submitted that the investigation is still ongoing, and granting bail at this stage may allow the applicant to influence tamper with evidence. witnesses or Hence, the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage. 11. Heard parties and perused available on record. the material learned counsel

12. It is evident from the record that the deceased was reported missing and was later found dead. The prosecution has brought on record material to show that certain bank transactions were carried out from the deceased’s account using his SIM card and UPI ID allegedly operated by the applicant. Recoveries of cash, mobile phone, Aadhar card of the deceased, and other related articles have also been made from the possession of the applicant and co-accused, who is his maternal uncle. investigation

13. The further reveals that the applicant was last seen with the deceased and that the post-mortem report confirms the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation. At this stage, the evidence collected prima facie indicates applicant in the offence. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature investigation, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail. involvement evidence,

14. Accordingly, the bail application moved by is hereby the applicant rejected. MAM TA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f 3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6 7ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266 90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Mam t a ( A l o k M a h r a , J.) 15.10.2025